Big3's top matches against a top10

Lew II · May 15, 2020

13) 2016 Tour Finals SF - Djokovic b. #5 Nishikori 6-1 6-1 (points won 63.6%)

12) 2013 Acapulco F - Nadal b. #4 Ferrer 6-0 6-2 (points won 64.8%)

11) 2014 Tour Finals RR - Djokovic b. #9 Cilic 6-1 6-1 (points won 65.1%)

10) 2015 Tour Finals RR - Djokovic b. #8 Nishikori 6-1 6-1 (points won 65.2%)

9) 2014 Bejing F - Djokovic b. #6 Berdych 6-0 6-2 (points won 65.5%)

Lew II · May 15, 2020

8) 2010 Shanghai QF - Federer b. #5 Soderling 6-1 6-1 (points won 66.7%)

7) 2018 MonteCarlo QF - Nadal b. #7 Thiem 6-0 6-2 (points won 67.4%)

6) 2015 US Open SF - Djokovic b. #9 Cilic 6-0 6-1 6-2 (points won 68.0%)

5) 2009 Australian Open QF - Federer b. #6 Del Potro 6-3 6-0 6-0 (points won 69.7%)

4) 2008 Queen's SF - Djokovic b. #8 Nalbandian 6-1 6-0 (points won 67.1%)

Lew II · May 15, 2020

3) 2017 Rome Masters SF - Djokovic b. #7 Thiem 6-1 6-0 (points won 68.8%)

2) 2014 Tour Finals RR - Federer b. #6 Murray 6-0 6-1 (points won 69.2%)

1) 2005 Masters Cup SF - Federer b. #9 Gaudio 6-0 6-0 (points won 68.8%)

NatF · May 15, 2020

Deja Vu

Lew II · May 15, 2020

7 are from Djokovic, 4 from Federer, 2 from Nadal.

9 out of 13 are from the period 2013-2018.

Lew II · May 15, 2020

Cilic, Thiem and Nishikori favourite pigeons. They made the list twice.

beard · May 15, 2020

I kinda expected Nadal to be most at this list...
What was your criterion, not only points percentage won?

Lew II · May 15, 2020

beard said:
I kinda expected Nadal to be most at this list...
What was your criterion, not only points percentage won?

Game percentage won, and if tied points percentage won.

beard · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Game percentage won, and if tied points percentage won.

Yes, I realised right after I asked, was too inpatient and fast...

Lew II · May 15, 2020

A surprising thing is that except Gaudio they all got destroyed on some of their favourite surface:

Nishikori - hard
Cilic - hard
Thiem - clay
Ferrer - clay
Berdych - hard
Soderling - hard
Del Potro - hard
Nalbandian - grass
Murray - hard

tennis_pro · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
A surprising thing is that except Gaudio they all got destroyed on some of their favourite surface:

Nishikori - hard
Cilic - hard
Thiem - clay
Ferrer - clay
Berdych - hard
Soderling - hard
Del Potro - hard
Nalbandian - grass
Murray - hard

especially Nalbandian on grass

Lew II · May 15, 2020

tennis_pro said:
especially Nalbandian on grass

Did he reach a Wimbledon final?

blablavla · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
9 out of 13 are from the period 2013-2018.

thank you @Lew II for proving how stronk is the competition in the era of greatest player ever born.

Lew II · May 15, 2020

blablavla said:
thank you @Lew II for proving how stronk is the competition in the era of greatest player ever born.

Yeah Big3 since 2013 are capable of incredible performances.

blablavla · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Yeah Big3 since 2013 are capable of incredible performances.

no, the field is the weakest ever, of course in relative terms.
Novak and Rafael didn't wait for Federer to retire, while Coric and Zverev wait for this moment.
It tells you everything you need to know.

Sysyphus · May 15, 2020

you know that Lew is always looking to be unbiased and for that reason chooses completely random numbers for his countdowns. He probably even uses a random number generator in the quest for unbiased analysis.

This time he ended up doing a top 13 list. Pretty random number, you might say.

Yes, but a more conventional top 10 list would make Novak's numbers look slightly less superior to Fed's (5 to 4 instead of a tastier 7 to 4). Another random number like 8 would make Fed look the best. And if we only went top 5, Fed would have 3 of the 5 spots, including the top 2. But these are just random coincidences.

blablavla · May 15, 2020

Sysyphus said:
you know that Lew is always looking to be unbiased and for that reason chooses completely random numbers for his countdown. He probably even uses a random number generator in the quest for unbiased analysis.

This time he ended up doing a top 13 list. Pretty random number, you might say.

Yes, but a more conventional top 10 list would make Novak's numbers look slightly less superior to Fed's (5 to 4 instead of a tastier 7 to 4). Another random number like 8 would make Fed look the best. And if we only went top 5, Fed would have 3 of the 5 spots, including the top 2. But these are just random coincidences.

oh no...
how dare you...
@Lew II is the ultimate statistician, only interested in statistics as a science.
no hidden agenda. Ask anyone from the Wonderland

Lew II · May 15, 2020

Safin's most dominant match against a top10 is only 6-2 6-2, which is nowhere near the best (146th best).

Another confirmation that his peak is overrated.

Lew II · May 15, 2020

Sysyphus said:
you know that Lew is always looking to be unbiased and for that reason chooses completely random numbers for his countdowns. He probably even uses a random number generator in the quest for unbiased analysis.

This time he ended up doing a top 13 list. Pretty random number, you might say.

Yes, but a more conventional top 10 list would make Novak's numbers look slightly less superior to Fed's (5 to 4 instead of a tastier 7 to 4). Another random number like 8 would make Fed look the best. And if we only went top 5, Fed would have 3 of the 5 spots, including the top 2. But these are just random coincidences.

The cutoff is at 85.7% of games won, which means 1 game dropped per set. I did it to have a good sample size.

Did I make it also to make Djokovic look better? Yes. But he would look good anyway.

blablavla · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Safin's most dominant match against a top10 is only 6-2 6-2, which is nowhere near the best (146th best).

Another confirmation that the opposition / field was stronger.

fixed it for you @Lew II

blablavla · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
The cutoff is at 85.7% of games won, which means 1 game dropped per set. I did it to have a good sample size.

Did I make it also to make Djokovic look better? Yes. But he would look good anyway.

I absolutely love how you joggle terms and switch from lemons to carpets.
You would be doing great as a politician @Lew II

now, tell me please.
In your 1st post, you bring the % of points won, which varies from 63.6% to 68.8%, but now you talk that the cut-off point was 85.7% games.
how should an independent observer grasp it?

Sysyphus · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Did I make it also to make Djokovic look better? Yes. But he would look good anyway.

LOL

If not your intellectual integrity, I at the very least appreciate your honesty

Fedr and three others · May 15, 2020

So fedr holds 4 of the top 5, including Grand Slam match against a slam winner Del potro, and against strong era opponent Murray. Djoko goat for sure

ForehandCross · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
13) 2016 Tour Finals SF - Djokovic b. #5 Nishikori 6-1 6-1 (points won 63.6%)

12) 2013 Acapulco F - Nadal b. #4 Ferrer 6-0 6-2 (points won 64.8%)

11) 2014 Tour Finals RR - Djokovic b. #9 Cilic 6-1 6-1 (points won 65.1%)

10) 2015 Tour Finals RR - Djokovic b. #8 Nishikori 6-1 6-1 (points won 65.2%)

9) 2014 Bejing F - Djokovic b. #6 Berdych 6-0 6-2 (points won 65.5%)

Djokovic against Berdych in Beijing was a massacre. Most of the matches on this list can be explained by opponent being bad, but Djokovic went God mode to extreme against Berdych. And Berdych wasn't even playing that bad. 2013 Djoker after USO went on a tear. Insane and often overlooked level.

Lew II · May 15, 2020

Fedr and three others said:
So fedr holds 4 of the top 5, including Grand Slam match against a slam winner Del potro, and against strong era opponent Murray. Djoko goat for sure

3

Lew II · May 15, 2020

blablavla said:
I absolutely love how you joggle terms and switch from lemons to carpets.
You would be doing great as a politician @Lew II

now, tell me please.
In your 1st post, you bring the % of points won, which varies from 63.6% to 68.8%, but now you talk that the cut-off point was 85.7% games.
how should an independent observer grasp it?

I explained in post #8 the criteria.

tennis_pro · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Did he reach a Wimbledon final?

One tournament where he had a **** poor draw. Nalbandian was best on (indoor) HC but great on any kind of HC really and on clay too. Grass no man just no.

Lew II · May 15, 2020

tennis_pro said:
One tournament where he had a **** poor draw. Nalbandian was best on (indoor) HC but great on any kind of HC really and on clay too. Grass no man just no.

He has a higher win percentage on grass than he does on hard and clay. Plus his best Slam result was on grass.

If it's not his best surface it's certainly close.

Anyway he didn't have particular preferences on surfaces.

junior74 · May 15, 2020

6-0, 6-0 = terrible, terrible opponent

Dekalog12 · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Safin's most dominant match against a top10 is only 6-2 6-2, which is nowhere near the best (146th best).

Another confirmation that his peak is overrated.

Yes, that is what I would look at to determine someone's peak. Here's the 16 most dominant performances (top 3) by games won % against the top 10.

1	David Goffin	Tomas Berdych	09-05-2016	Rome Masters	Clay	R16	6-0 6-0	100.00%
1	Roger Federer	Gaston Gaudio	14-11-2005	Masters Cup	Carpet	SF	6-0 6-0	100.00%
3	David Ferrer	Gaston Gaudio	02-05-2005	Rome Masters	Clay	R16	6-0 6-1	92.30%
3	Joao Sousa	David Goffin	19-03-2018	Miami Masters	Hard	R64	6-0 6-1	92.30%
3	Jonas Bjorkman	Mariano Puerta	26-09-2005	Ho Chi Minh City	Carpet	SF	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Kevin Anderson	Kei Nishikori	12-11-2018	Tour Finals	Hard (i)	RR	6-0 6-1	92.30%
3	Michael Chang	Alberto Berasategui	15-11-1994	Tour Finals	Carpet	RR	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Mikhail Youzhny	Rafael Nadal	31-12-2007	Chennai	Hard	F	6-0 6-1	92.30%
3	Novak Djokovic	David Nalbandian	09-06-2008	Queen's Club	Grass	SF	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Novak Djokovic	Dominic Thiem	15-05-2017	Rome Masters	Clay	SF	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Philipp Kohlschreiber	David Ferrer	18-05-2008	Dusseldorf	Clay	RR	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Robby Ginepri	Marat Safin	10-03-2003	Indian Wells Masters	Hard	R16	6-0 6-1	92.30%
3	Robin Soderling	Tomas Berdych	11-07-2011	Bastad	Clay	SF	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Roger Federer	Andy Murray	09-11-2014	Tour Finals	Hard (i)	RR	6-0 6-1	92.30%
3	Slava Dosedel	Jonas Bjorkman	20-04-1998	Monte Carlo Masters	Clay	R32	6-1 6-0	92.30%
3	Tommy Haas	Alex Corretja	09-10-2000	Vienna	Hard (i)	R32	6-1 6-0	92.30%

As we can all see Goffin (Co-Goat), Sousa, Kohlschreiber, Ginepri, Dosedel have a higher peak than Sampras whose best is 80% (i.e only 60th rank). Also Thiem's best is ranked 313, while Philippoussis' is 60 and Baghdatis' is 146.

Source - https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/topMatchStats. Sort by games won% and filter by opponent - vs. top 10. It doesn't display matches before 1991 because points stats aren't available for those matches. So I went and looked at Pete's match results vs. top 10 before then, and he didn't do better than 80%.

Lew II · May 15, 2020

Dekalog12 said:
Yes, that is what I would look at to determine someone's peak. Here's the 16 most dominant performances (top 3) by games won % against the top 10.

1
David Goffin Tomas Berdych
09-05-2016
Rome Masters Clay R16 6-0 6-0
100.00%
1
Roger Federer Gaston Gaudio
14-11-2005
Masters Cup Carpet SF 6-0 6-0
100.00%
3
David Ferrer Gaston Gaudio
02-05-2005
Rome Masters Clay R16 6-0 6-1
92.30%
3
Joao Sousa David Goffin
19-03-2018
Miami Masters Hard R64 6-0 6-1
92.30%
3
Jonas Bjorkman Mariano Puerta
26-09-2005
Ho Chi Minh City Carpet SF 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Kevin Anderson Kei Nishikori
12-11-2018
Tour Finals Hard (i) RR 6-0 6-1
92.30%
3
Michael Chang Alberto Berasategui
15-11-1994
Tour Finals Carpet RR 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Mikhail Youzhny Rafael Nadal
31-12-2007
Chennai Hard F 6-0 6-1
92.30%
3
Novak Djokovic David Nalbandian
09-06-2008
Queen's Club Grass SF 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Novak Djokovic Dominic Thiem
15-05-2017
Rome Masters Clay SF 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Philipp Kohlschreiber David Ferrer
18-05-2008
Dusseldorf Clay RR 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Robby Ginepri Marat Safin
10-03-2003
Indian Wells Masters Hard R16 6-0 6-1
92.30%
3
Robin Soderling Tomas Berdych
11-07-2011
Bastad Clay SF 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Roger Federer Andy Murray
09-11-2014
Tour Finals Hard (i) RR 6-0 6-1
92.30%
3
Slava Dosedel Jonas Bjorkman
20-04-1998
Monte Carlo Masters Clay R32 6-1 6-0
92.30%
3
Tommy Haas Alex Corretja
09-10-2000
Vienna Hard (i) R32 6-1 6-0
92.30%

As we can all see Goffin (Co-Goat), Sousa, Kohlschreiber, Ginepri, Dosedel have a higher peak than Sampras whose best is 80% (i.e only 60th rank). Also Thiem's best is ranked 313, while Philippoussis' is 60 and Baghdatis' is 146.

Source - https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/topMatchStats. Sort by games won% and filter by opponent - vs. top 10. It doesn't display matches before 1991 because points stats aren't available for those matches. So I went and looked at Pete's match results vs. top 10 before then, and he didn't do better than 80%.

One match is not enough. It could be just a case.

beard · May 15, 2020

Sysyphus said:
you know that Lew is always looking to be unbiased and for that reason chooses completely random numbers for his countdowns. He probably even uses a random number generator in the quest for unbiased analysis.

This time he ended up doing a top 13 list. Pretty random number, you might say.

Yes, but a more conventional top 10 list would make Novak's numbers look slightly less superior to Fed's (5 to 4 instead of a tastier 7 to 4). Another random number like 8 would make Fed look the best. And if we only went top 5, Fed would have 3 of the 5 spots, including the top 2. But these are just random coincidences.

Lew II said:
The cutoff is at 85.7% of games won, which means 1 game dropped per set. I did it to have a good sample size.

Did I make it also to make Djokovic look better? Yes. But he would look good anyway.

Its always better to nicely ask about methodology. Otherwise you can start acting cleaver and finish being fool...

beard · May 15, 2020

blablavla said:
I absolutely love how you joggle terms and switch from lemons to carpets.
You would be doing great as a politician @Lew II

now, tell me please.
In your 1st post, you bring the % of points won, which varies from 63.6% to 68.8%, but now you talk that the cut-off point was 85.7% games.
how should an independent observer grasp it?

Lew II said:
I explained in post #8 the criteria.

Another one

tennis_pro · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
One match is not enough. It could be just a case.

I say it's enough, what now?

blablavla · May 15, 2020

beard said:
Its always better to nicely ask about methodology. Otherwise you can start acting cleaver and finish being fool...

Alice, don't worry, nobody can compete with you.
Although you start having some competition from other Wonderland members

Lew II · May 15, 2020

Average percentage of games won in their top10 performances against top10s (since 1991):

1) Djokovic 85.64
2) Federer 83.47
3) Nadal 81.25
4) Ferrer 77.50
5) Sampras 75.38
6) Agassi 75.31
7) Chang 74.50
8) Murray 74.08
9) Youzhny 74.06
10) Wawrinka 73.68

blablavla · May 15, 2020

Lew II said:
Average percentage of games won in their top10 performances against top10s (since 1991):

1) Djokovic 85.64
2) Federer 83.47
3) Nadal 81.25
4) Ferrer 77.50
5) Sampras 75.38
6) Agassi 75.31
7) Chang 74.50
8) Murray 74.08
9) Youzhny 74.06
10) Wawrinka 73.68

thank you @Lew II this comes once again to show that Sampras, Agassi and other ATGs from the past had stronger opposition.
so hopefully the "vulturing" question is closed now, and everyone can agree that Novak is the biggest beneficiary, yet he can't beat a grandpa fair and square.

RaulRamirez · May 15, 2020

I really don't think that anyone (including Lew) looks at this list and says, "Hmmm, Novak had 7, Fed 4, and Rafa 2 in this category. Yep, that's my GOAT ranking.'

To me, it's just an interesting compilation, with links to highlights if it's a slow day.

beard · May 15, 2020

blablavla said:
Alice, don't worry, nobody can compete with you.
Although you start having some competition from other Wonderland members

You are a child, aren't you?

blablavla · May 15, 2020

beard said:
You are a child, aren't you?

if you ask my parents, I will always be their child.
Guess same applies to everyone else who has at least 1 parent alive. Including you.

tudwell · May 15, 2020

Sysyphus said:
you know that Lew is always looking to be unbiased and for that reason chooses completely random numbers for his countdowns. He probably even uses a random number generator in the quest for unbiased analysis.

This time he ended up doing a top 13 list. Pretty random number, you might say.

Yes, but a more conventional top 10 list would make Novak's numbers look slightly less superior to Fed's (5 to 4 instead of a tastier 7 to 4). Another random number like 8 would make Fed look the best. And if we only went top 5, Fed would have 3 of the 5 spots, including the top 2. But these are just random coincidences.

I notice Fed's the only one on the list to do it against an ATG (i.e., someone who made 10+ slam finals). Vamos!

MeatTornado · May 15, 2020

Who on earth makes a top 13 list?

Lew's a baker, confirmed?

Backspin1183 · May 15, 2020

Another propaganda to show Federer had the highest peak.

Big3's top matches against a top10

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

New User

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Similar threads