Lew Rating for all Slam winners since 2003

[Lew II]

Lew Rating --> percentage of sets (or matches, games, points) won minus the opponents' average ranking.

example = 2008 RG Nadal won 100.0% of sets beating players ranked on average 17.0 --> 100.0 - 17.0 = 83.0

all Slam winners since 2003 ranked from highest to lowest:

2008 RG Nadal - 83.0
2007 AO Federer - 82.1
2011 AO Djokovic - 81.6
2017 RG Nadal - 80.6
2017 WI Federer - 79.8
2005 WI Federer - 76.4
2012 RG Nadal - 75.9
2010 UO Nadal - 75.4
2008 AO Djokovic / 2010 AO Federer - 75.1
2007 RG Nadal - 74.6
2015 RG Wawrinka- 73.3
2016 AO Djokovic - 72.4
2006 WI Federer - 71.8
2013 RG Nadal - 71.6
2015 WI Djokovic - 70.6
2009 UO Del Potro - 69.7
2013 UO Nadal - 69.4
2013 AO Djokovic - 68.7
2006 RG Nadal - 68.5
2011 RG Nadal / 2015 UO Djokovic - 68.4
2016 RG Djokovic - 68.2
2019 RG Nadal - 67.9
2018 RG Nadal - 67.6
2005 UO Federer - 66.2
2007 WI Federer - 66.0
2003 UO Roddick / 2014 RG Nadal - 65.9
2005 RG Nadal - 65.4
2015 AO Djokovic - 65.2
2004 UO Federer / 2014 AO Wawrinka / 2014 UO Cilic / 2020 AO Djokovic - 65.1
2008 WI Nadal - 64.6
2018 WI Djokovic - 64.4
2003 WI Federer - 63.8
2016 WI Murray - 62.5
2010 RG Nadal / 2012 UO Murray - 62.2
2018 UO Djokovic - 63.3
2019 AO Djokovic - 63.1
2009 AO Nadal - 62.9
2013 WI Murray - 62.5
2006 UO Federer - 61.9
2009 WI Federer / 2012 WI Federer - 61.7
2011 UO Djokovic - 61.2
2007 UO Federer - 60.7
2005 AO Safin - 59.2
2011 WI Djokovic - 59.0
2012 AO Djokovic 57.6
2018 AO Federer - 56.9
2008 UO Federer - 56.7
2004 AO Federer / 2019 UO Nadal - 56.5
2014 WI Djokovic - 55.9
2004 WI Federer - 55.1
2004 RG Gaudio - 54.6
2003 RG Ferrero - 54.3
2003 AO Agassi - 52.9
2019 WI Djokovic - 52.6
2010 WI Nadal / 2017 AO Federer - 50.4
2009 RG Federer - 50.2
2016 UO Wawrinka - 44.6
2006 AO Federer - 42.2
2017 UO Nadal - 31.0

 

[weakera]

This proves Nadal is GOAT?

 

[Lew II]

Nadal and Federer have most of the top performances:

2008 RG Nadal - 83.0
2007 AO Federer - 82.1
2011 AO Djokovic - 81.6
2017 RG Nadal - 80.6
2017 WI Federer - 79.8
2005 WI Federer - 76.4
2012 RG Nadal - 75.9
2010 UO Nadal - 75.4

4 by Nadal, 3 by Federer, 1 by Djokovic.

But also most of the weakest:

2017 UO Nadal - 31.0
2006 AO Federer - 42.2
2016 UO Wawrinka - 44.6
2009 RG Federer - 50.2
2010 WI Nadal / 2017 AO Federer - 50.4
2019 WI Djokovic - 52.6
2003 AO Agassi - 52.9
2003 RG Ferrero - 54.3
2004 RG Gaudio - 54.6
2004 WI Federer - 55.1
2014 WI Djokovic - 55.9
2004 AO Federer / 2019 UO Nadal - 56.5
2008 UO Federer - 56.7
2018 AO Federer - 56.9

7 by Federer, 3 by Nadal, 2 by Djokovic

 

[Druss]

RG 2009 seems rather low if you ask me.

It's rather fitting that the Big 3's (arguably) most dominant performances at a slam came in ranked at the top.

 

[Lew II]

This proves Nadal is GOAT?

12 of Nadal's 14 top performances were at RG. So it's the same old problem.

The Lew Rating has already determined that Nole is the best, by the way:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/winning-percentage-minus-opponents-ranking.656844/

Top seasons by Big3:

2015 Djokovic - 75.38
2011 Djokovic - 74.81
2013 Nadal - 72.56
2014 Djokovic - 70.51
2013 Djokovic - 70.36
2012 Djokovic - 68.81
2017 Federer - 67.03
2016 Djokovic - 66.44

 

[weakera]

Nadal and Federer have most of the top performances:

2008 RG Nadal - 83.0
2007 AO Federer - 82.1
2011 AO Djokovic - 81.6
2017 RG Nadal - 80.6
2017 WI Federer - 79.8
2005 WI Federer - 76.4
2012 RG Nadal - 75.9
2010 UO Nadal - 75.4

4 by Nadal, 3 by Federer, 1 by Djokovic.

But also most of the weakest:

2017 UO Nadal - 31.0
2006 AO Federer - 42.2
2016 UO Wawrinka - 44.6
2009 RG Federer - 50.2
2010 WI Nadal / 2017 AO Federer - 50.4
2019 WI Djokovic - 52.6
2003 AO Agassi - 52.9
2003 RG Ferrero - 54.3
2004 RG Gaudio - 54.6
2004 WI Federer - 55.1
2014 WI Djokovic - 55.9
2004 AO Federer / 2019 UO Nadal - 56.5
2008 UO Federer - 56.7
2018 AO Federer - 56.9

7 by Federer, 3 by Nadal, 2 by Djokovic

So Nadal and Djokovic are separated by 1 in the weakest dept but you lump Nadal with Federer lol?

 

[Lew II]

So Nadal and Djokovic are separated by 1 in the weakest dept but you lump Nadal with Federer lol?

Yeah you're actually right. I meant Djokovic has the least.

 

[RS]

Lew Rating --> percentage of sets (or matches, games, points) lost minus the opponents' average ranking.

example = 2008 RG Nadal won 100.0% of sets beating players ranked on average 17.0 --> 100.0 - 17.0 = 83.0

all Slam winners since 2003 ranked from highest to lowest:

2008 RG Nadal - 83.0
2007 AO Federer - 82.1
2011 AO Djokovic - 81.6
2017 RG Nadal - 80.6
2017 WI Federer - 79.8
2005 WI Federer - 76.4
2012 RG Nadal - 75.9
2010 UO Nadal - 75.4
2008 AO Djokovic / 2010 AO Federer - 75.1
2007 RG Nadal - 74.6
2015 RG Wawrinka- 73.3
2016 AO Djokovic - 72.4
2006 WI Federer - 71.8
2013 RG Nadal - 71.6
2015 WI Djokovic - 70.6
2009 UO Del Potro - 69.7
2013 UO Nadal - 69.4
2013 AO Djokovic - 68.7
2006 RG Nadal - 68.5
2011 RG Nadal / 2015 UO Djokovic - 68.4
2016 RG Djokovic - 68.2
2019 RG Nadal - 67.9
2018 RG Nadal - 67.6
2005 UO Federer - 66.2
2007 WI Federer - 66.0
2003 UO Roddick / 2014 RG Nadal - 65.9
2005 RG Nadal - 65.4
2015 AO Djokovic - 65.2
2004 UO Federer / 2014 AO Wawrinka / 2014 UO Cilic / 2020 AO Djokovic - 65.1
2008 WI Nadal - 64.6
2018 WI Djokovic - 64.4
2003 WI Federer - 63.8
2016 WI Murray - 62.5
2010 RG Nadal / 2012 UO Murray - 62.2
2018 UO Djokovic - 63.3
2019 AO Djokovic - 63.1
2009 AO Nadal - 62.9
2013 WI Murray - 62.5
2006 UO Federer - 61.9
2009 WI Federer / 2012 WI Federer - 61.7
2011 UO Djokovic - 61.2
2007 UO Federer - 60.7
2005 AO Safin - 59.2
2011 WI Djokovic - 59.0
2012 AO Djokovic 57.6
2018 AO Federer - 56.9
2008 UO Federer - 56.7
2004 AO Federer / 2019 UO Nadal - 56.5
2014 WI Djokovic - 55.9
2004 WI Federer - 55.1
2004 RG Gaudio - 54.6
2003 RG Ferrero - 54.3
2003 AO Agassi - 52.9
2019 WI Djokovic - 52.6
2010 WI Nadal / 2017 AO Federer - 50.4
2009 RG Federer - 50.2
2016 UO Wawrinka - 44.6
2006 AO Federer - 42.2
2017 UO Nadal - 31.0

Is this how you rate them generally though leaving stats out.

 

[Lew II]

Is this how you rate them generally though leaving stats out.

I like this method, as it measures both domination and toughness of the draw.

I'd have higher those beating Big3 in the finals/semis (such as 2009 UO, 2014 AO, 2011 UO, etc.) for the simple reason that beating Big3 in the latter stages of Slams is the ultimate challenge in tennis.

 

[blablavla]

It like this method, as it measures both domination and toughness of the draw.

I'd have higher those beating Big3 in the finals/semis (such as 2009 UO, 2014 AO, 2011 UO, etc.) for the simple reason that beating Big3 in the latter stages of Slams is the ultimate challenge in tennis.

unfortunately it doesn't measure the toughness of the draw.

For example, Kafelnikov after reaching to the so much desired #1 in ranking had a very bad period results-wise, as he probably lost motivation.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, a low ranked player, called Dustin Brown, will be a much more dangerous force on grass as opposed to many clay specialists who are comfortably in top 100 simply because there is a disproportionately bigger possibility to gather point on clay.

so, current form and current form on the surface would be needed to evaluate.

or take another example, a low ranked Marat Safin, playing his first GS at RG and cruising into QF I believe?
one shall be crazy to laugh at Agassi loss to Safin simply because Safin was low ranked.

 

[Lew II]

unfortunately it doesn't measure the toughness of the draw.

For example, Kafelnikov after reaching to the so much desired #1 in ranking had a very bad period results-wise, as he probably lost motivation.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, a low ranked player, called Dustin Brown, will be a much more dangerous force on grass as opposed to many clay specialists who are comfortably in top 100 simply because there is a disproportionately bigger possibility to gather point on clay.

so, current form and current form on the surface would be needed to evaluate.

or take another example, a low ranked Marat Safin, playing his first GS at RG and cruising into QF I believe?
one shall be crazy to laugh at Agassi loss to Safin simply because Safin was low ranked.

On average high ranked players play better. This is the principle ATP bases his ranking on.

 

[blablavla]

On average high ranked players play better. This is the principle ATP bases his ranking on.

on average everyone in the hospital has the body temperature = 36.6 degrees

point is that the dead bodies in the morgue are way below 36.6, and the ill people on the levels above the ground are above the 36.6.
but on average they could all go home, cause 36.6

 

[Lew II]

What are the highest ranked opponents someone could face in a full draw?

Assuming he's not seeded:

#1 in the first round
#33 in the second round
#25 in the third round
#12 in the fourth round
#5 in the QF
#3 in the SF
#2 in the F

Average (geometric mean): 6.1

Could it be it?

 

[RaulRamirez]

12 of Nadal's 14 top performances were at RG. So it's the same old problem.

The Lew Rating has already determined that Nole is the best, by the way:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/winning-percentage-minus-opponents-ranking.656844/

Top seasons by Big3:

2015 Djokovic - 75.38
2011 Djokovic - 74.81
2013 Nadal - 72.56
2014 Djokovic - 70.51
2013 Djokovic - 70.36
2012 Djokovic - 68.81
2017 Federer - 67.03
2016 Djokovic - 66.44

Full season(s), or just at the slams?

 

[Lew II]

Full season(s), or just at the slams?

Whole seasons. For slams only you can see in the thread in posts #14 and #25.

 

[Lew II]

on average everyone in the hospital has the body temperature = 36.6 degrees

point is that the dead bodies in the morgue are way below 36.6, and the ill people on the levels above the ground are above the 36.6.
but on average they could all go home, cause 36.6

If you were a pro would you prefer to face all the top seeds in a Slam draw or would you rather not face any of them?

 

[blablavla]

If you were a pro would you prefer to face all the top seeds in a Slam draw or would you rather not face any of them?

if I had to choose between Kafelnikov after he reached the #1 or Dustin Brown on grass, I would choose Kafelnikov.
or if I had to choose between Stan the Man and Dustin Brown on grass, I would choose Stan the Man.
between Medvedev on clay and Cecchinato, I would choose Medvedev
or between Thiem and Querrey I would choose Thiem on grass
between L. Djere and Kukushkin I would choose Djere on grass
should I continue the list?

 

[Third Serve]

My main quibble is that Fed's Wimbledon 2004 and US Open 2008 are far too low. The former is one of his best Wimbledon wins and the latter was still a nice win. I suppose the Andreev match bogs it down a bit. There are a few other issues here, but none as big.

The list as a whole isn't that bad, though. It's nice to see 2011 AO Djokovic near the top. And of course 2008 RG Nadal kinda goes without saying.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[Lew II]

if I had to choose between Kafelnikov after he reached the #1 or Dustin Brown on grass, I would choose Kafelnikov.
or if I had to choose between Stan the Man and Dustin Brown on grass, I would choose Stan the Man.
between Medvedev on clay and Cecchinato, I would choose Medvedev
or between Thiem and Querrey I would choose Thiem on grass
between L. Djere and Kukushkin I would choose Djere on grass
should I continue the list?

Will you ever answer one of my questions?

 

[blablavla]

Will you ever answer one of my questions?

I believe Thiem was one of the top seeds at Wimbledon 2019, so this should be an answer to your question.
Also someone named Nadal has a history of losing in the early rounds of Wimbledon.

So yeah, if I were I pro, instead of facing Querrey, or Brown, I would choose to face Thiem.
And if Thiem is not sufficient for top seed, then I see no point in answering your question.

 

[MeatTornado]

So does this mean we're done now?

 

[Lew II]

I believe Thiem was one of the top seeds at Wimbledon 2019, so this should be an answer to your question.
Also someone named Nadal has a history of losing in the early rounds of Wimbledon.

So yeah, if I were I pro, instead of facing Querrey, or Brown, I would choose to face Thiem.
And if Thiem is not sufficient for top seed, then I see no point in answering your question.

You still didn't answer my question.

 

[FedeRadi]

I like this method, as it measures both domination and toughness of the draw.

I'd have higher those beating Big3 in the finals/semis (such as 2009 UO, 2014 AO, 2011 UO, etc.) for the simple reason that beating Big3 in the latter stages of Slams is the ultimate challenge in tennis.

I like the idea. But this ranking subtracts pears from apples, and this is never a good idea when you create an index.
It's really difficult to create an index like this(I tried in ranking Wimbledon runner-ups topic, but I can't), because you risk to penalize too much o not enough dominant players with weaker draw, or below average performances with hard draw against played who was decent in both metrics.

And, I know in average higher players in rank played better. But it's not random, the error is strongly correlated with the level of the top competition. Beat #2 Roddick, #3 Hewitt and #4 Safin in 2005 is very different than beat #2 Nadal, #3 Federer and #4 Murray in 2012.
I think the ranking generally underrate all early 2010s performances in favor of early-mid 2000s one.

Said that, I appreciated it.

 

[blablavla]

You still didn't answer my question.

your question is factually incorrect and formulated in a way that any answer will lead to your system being superior.
as you didn't define the top seeds, I'll proceed with 32 top seeds as being = top seeds.

1. your question is such that both scenarios are out of this world. Please name the GS where the winners had to face ONLY top seeds in ALL 7 matches or ONLY unseeded players in ALL 7 matches
2. why would I want to play and win 32 matches when everyone else only needs 7 matches to win a GS? doesn't sound like an attractive business proposition to me
3. by the very nature of the seeding, it is impossible to face ALL top seeds, unless you define the top seeds as being equal to #1 and #2 only, as half of the seeds are in one side, and half are in another side, so if I am the only one knocking out (seeded) players ranked above me, and I reach the final, in the other semi-final there will be 2 top seeds and only 1 will proceed to play the final. Same applies to the QF, where 4 top seeds will be eliminated by definition, if I am the only one knocking out players with higher ranking
4. this is without touching the facts discussed many times on this board showing that the W system of adjusting seeds is a working one, and RG should copy it as well, cause their seeding rarely translates into #1 player winning the tourney

 

[Lew II]

your question is factually incorrect and formulated in a way that any answer will lead to your system being superior.
as you didn't define the top seeds, I'll proceed with 32 top seeds as being = top seeds.

1. your question is such that both scenarios are out of this world. Please name the GS where the winners had to face ONLY top seeds in ALL 7 matches or ONLY unseeded players in ALL 7 matches
2. why would I want to play and win 32 matches when everyone else only needs 7 matches to win a GS? doesn't sound like an attractive business proposition to me
3. by the very nature of the seeding, it is impossible to face ALL top seeds, unless you define the top seeds as being equal to #1 and #2 only, as half of the seeds are in one side, and half are in another side, so if I am the only one knocking out (seeded) players ranked above me, and I reach the final, in the other semi-final there will be 2 top seeds and only 1 will proceed to play the final. Same applies to the QF, where 4 top seeds will be eliminated by definition, if I am the only one knocking out players with higher ranking
4. this is without touching the facts discussed many times on this board showing that the W system of adjusting seeds is a working one, and RG should copy it as well, cause their seeding rarely translates into #1 player winning the tourney

I meant all the highest possible seeds. See the post #13 for an example

 

[blablavla]

I meant all the highest possible seeds. See the post #13 for an example

how many times did someone face all those seeds in this order?
and how many times someone reached the final facing only unseeded players?

my comment to the current form and surface form is 100% disconnected from meeting only seeded players or only unseeded players.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Without looking at results/names, I think it's an interesting way to look at dominance per one slam or another.
It is a bit of a mixed metaphor, though, as FedeRadi pointed out.

In the scheme of things, I don't know how important it is to win a slam without dropping a set or to win against higher-ranked players, but I don't know that I have another way, other than just looking at these as separate matters, or looking at point or game dominance. And just as its own thing, not to have any effect on persistent GOAT rankings and discussions.

Still, credit to Lew for putting it out there.

 

[King No1e]

Great stuff as always from Lew. Probably the most accurate playing level index I've ever seen.
Still I would say no statistical model can be 100% perfect measuring playing level - this one puts Fed's 2017 Wimbledon above Nadal's RG12 which just isn't right - Nadal's loss of 1 set to a zoning Djokovic bumps him below Fed's run where he beat his career pigeons, one being injured, to win.

 

[travlerajm]

Nice effort. But I must point out that weakness of the era is not accounted for. It is not coincidence that each of the Big3 members had his best Lew Season at an advanced age.

 

[The Blond Blur]

This proves Nadal is GOAT?

 

[Eren]

Great stuff as always from Lew. Probably the most accurate playing level index I've ever seen.
Still I would say no statistical model can be 100% perfect measuring playing level - this one puts Fed's 2017 Wimbledon above Nadal's RG12 which just isn't right - Nadal's loss of 1 set to a zoning Djokovic bumps him below Fed's run where he beat his career pigeons, one being injured, to win.

Yeah, and Fed's 2004 WI is very low on the list which isn't right either. Generally, it's an okay list. The number one speaks for itself (even if his opponent in the final did play subpar [he would have lost in 3 tight sets or 4 sets if playing up to standards a la 2008 Djokovic], the Nadal himself was too good for any version of any player).

 

[RS]

I like this method, as it measures both domination and toughness of the draw.

I'd have higher those beating Big3 in the finals/semis (such as 2009 UO, 2014 AO, 2011 UO, etc.) for the simple reason that beating Big3 in the latter stages of Slams is the ultimate challenge in tennis.

Agree and of course some play worse earlier and pick up.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

I'm just surprised it took this long to get a 'Lew Rating'

 

[sureshs]

Lew Rating --> percentage of sets (or matches, games, points) won minus the opponents' average ranking.

example = 2008 RG Nadal won 100.0% of sets beating players ranked on average 17.0 --> 100.0 - 17.0 = 83.0

all Slam winners since 2003 ranked from highest to lowest:

2008 RG Nadal - 83.0
2007 AO Federer - 82.1
2011 AO Djokovic - 81.6
2017 RG Nadal - 80.6
2017 WI Federer - 79.8
2005 WI Federer - 76.4
2012 RG Nadal - 75.9
2010 UO Nadal - 75.4
2008 AO Djokovic / 2010 AO Federer - 75.1
2007 RG Nadal - 74.6
2015 RG Wawrinka- 73.3
2016 AO Djokovic - 72.4
2006 WI Federer - 71.8
2013 RG Nadal - 71.6
2015 WI Djokovic - 70.6
2009 UO Del Potro - 69.7
2013 UO Nadal - 69.4
2013 AO Djokovic - 68.7
2006 RG Nadal - 68.5
2011 RG Nadal / 2015 UO Djokovic - 68.4
2016 RG Djokovic - 68.2
2019 RG Nadal - 67.9
2018 RG Nadal - 67.6
2005 UO Federer - 66.2
2007 WI Federer - 66.0
2003 UO Roddick / 2014 RG Nadal - 65.9
2005 RG Nadal - 65.4
2015 AO Djokovic - 65.2
2004 UO Federer / 2014 AO Wawrinka / 2014 UO Cilic / 2020 AO Djokovic - 65.1
2008 WI Nadal - 64.6
2018 WI Djokovic - 64.4
2003 WI Federer - 63.8
2016 WI Murray - 62.5
2010 RG Nadal / 2012 UO Murray - 62.2
2018 UO Djokovic - 63.3
2019 AO Djokovic - 63.1
2009 AO Nadal - 62.9
2013 WI Murray - 62.5
2006 UO Federer - 61.9
2009 WI Federer / 2012 WI Federer - 61.7
2011 UO Djokovic - 61.2
2007 UO Federer - 60.7
2005 AO Safin - 59.2
2011 WI Djokovic - 59.0
2012 AO Djokovic 57.6
2018 AO Federer - 56.9
2008 UO Federer - 56.7
2004 AO Federer / 2019 UO Nadal - 56.5
2014 WI Djokovic - 55.9
2004 WI Federer - 55.1
2004 RG Gaudio - 54.6
2003 RG Ferrero - 54.3
2003 AO Agassi - 52.9
2019 WI Djokovic - 52.6
2010 WI Nadal / 2017 AO Federer - 50.4
2009 RG Federer - 50.2
2016 UO Wawrinka - 44.6
2006 AO Federer - 42.2
2017 UO Nadal - 31.0

This proves that Nadal is GOAT

 

[sureshs]

What is Lew Hoad's Lew rating?

 

[sureshs]

Nadal has won the highest Loo Rating for his buttpicks.

 

[Bumbaliceps]

What happens if your opponent in the 1st round, ranked #576, withdraws before the match ?

After your victory in the final sunday, you can make your little calculations, in order to judge your overall performance for 2 weeks.
What will you conclude ? That you can thank the #576 dude for withdrawing, because he made your 2 weeks overall performance a lot better than if he played and lost 6/0 6/0 6/0 in 50 minutes.

 

[Phoenix1983]

12 of Nadal's 14 top performances were at RG. So it's the same old problem.

The Lew Rating has already determined that Nole is the best, by the way:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/winning-percentage-minus-opponents-ranking.656844/

What it tells us?

Spoiler

that Lew is biased towards Novak Djokovic, of course

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Uranus's numbers.

 

[daggerman]

So beating world #25 (currently Carreño Busta) in straight sets (100 - 25 = 75) is better than beating world #1 (currently Djokovic) in 4 sets (75 - 1 = 74)?