Comparing Grand Slam Winning Percentage of Big 3

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Overall Grand Slam Winning Percentage
Nadal - 87.71% - 2nd best all time
Federer - 87.14% - 3rd best all time
Djokovic - 83.12% - 6th best all time

Australian Open
Nadal - 83.3% - 7th best all time
Federer - 87.5% - 3rd best all time
Djokovic - 86.5% - 4th best all time

French Open
Nadal -98.1% - 1st best all time
Federer - 80.6% - 7th best all time
Djokovic - 79.5% - 8th best all time

Wimbledon
Nadal - 85.7% - 7th best all time
Federer - 90.4% - 2nd best all time
Djokovic - 82.0 - 10th best all time

U.S. Open
Nadal - 81.0% - 9th best all time
Federer - 89.7% - 1st best all time
Djokovic - 84.6% - 4th best all time

Federer is top 3 at three of the four grand slams. Nadal is top 3 at one of the four grand slams. Federer's lowest is 7th at one grand slam. Nadal is 7th or lower at 3 of the four grand slams.

It is staggering how much Nadal's beyond awesome success at the French Open inflates his grand slam winning percentage.

Interestingly enough, these are the only three players in history to be top 10 at all four grand slams (minimum 20 matches).
 
S

SStrikerR

Hall of Fame
Yet people still claim Nadal is the best player in grand slams. No, sorry, he's just the king of clay. And that we all know and agree with.
 
R

-RF-

Hall of Fame
I love how all these people who call Nadal better than Federer. No.

When Nadal is 31, will he be World no.1 and still be seriously challenging the top 3, whilst getting to (at least) a SF at every single slam? Hmm. Think not.
 
Hood_Man

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
Interesting stat, but I'm sure it's been posted dozens of times elsewhere.

Why not compile everything into one thread and update it regularly?
 
TheF1Bob

TheF1Bob

Banned
Them stats proves with out a shadow of a doubt how great Novak Djokovic will become over the next 5 years, at least.

Feds done well but Nadal? LOL, take away the clay and he wouldn't be in the top 50.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
TheF1Bob said:
Them stats proves with out a shadow of a doubt how great Novak Djokovic will become over the next 5 years, at least.

Feds done well but Nadal? LOL, take away the clay and he wouldn't be in the top 50.
Click to expand...
He'd still be a top 10 player without the clay.
 
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
SStrikerR said:
Yet people still claim Nadal is the best player in grand slams. No, sorry, he's just the king of clay. And that we all know and agree with.
Click to expand...

Nadal is a fantastic player on all surfaces, No one dominates stats, records, or anything else in tennis the way Federer did, so obviously compared to the GOAT his resume may not look spotless. It's actually pretty amazing he's accomplished as much as he had/did in the same era with Federer. Credit where it's due lie him or not.
 
A

absurdo

Rookie
MichaelNadal said:
Nadal is a fantastic player on all surfaces, No one dominates stats, records, or anything else in tennis the way Federer did, so obviously compared to the GOAT his resume may not look spotless. It's actually pretty amazing he's accomplished as much as he had/did in the same era with Federer. Credit where it's due lie him or not.
Click to expand...

completely.
 
BauerAlmeida

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Which are Borg's and Agassi's winning percentages at the slams?

-RF- said:
I love how all these people who call Nadal better than Federer. No.

When Nadal is 31, will he be World no.1 and still be seriously challenging the top 3, whilst getting to (at least) a SF at every single slam? Hmm. Think not.
Click to expand...

And was Federer winning slams and being ranked N°2 at 18/19?? No. I don't see how being better at an old age is more impressive than being better at a young age.
 
AnotherTennisProdigy

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
This is why the GOAT debate is never ending and will never be resolved.

This info shows us that Federer handles the field the best out of the three (outside of clay), but at the same time he is losing to Nadal. Most of those losses are on clay, but it still doesn't change the fact that he has a losing head to head with his main rival.

Performance against field vs. Performance against Nadal
 
G

gennosuke

Banned
AnotherTennisProdigy said:
This is why the GOAT debate is never ending and will never be resolved.

This info shows us that Federer handles the field the best out of the three (outside of clay), but at the same time he is losing to Nadal. Most of those losses are on clay, but it still doesn't change the fact that he has a losing head to head with his main rival.

Performance against field vs. Performance against Nadal
Click to expand...

Yeah, it just makes it irrelevant. :lol:
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
sureshs said:
Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer
Click to expand...

Exactly, it can only get worse for Nadal from now on, Federer will probably retire with 85 % matches won in the majors while Nadal will have to work his butt off for the next couple of years to stay close.
 
S

SStrikerR

Hall of Fame
MichaelNadal said:
Nadal is a fantastic player on all surfaces, No one dominates stats, records, or anything else in tennis the way Federer did, so obviously compared to the GOAT his resume may not look spotless. It's actually pretty amazing he's accomplished as much as he had/did in the same era with Federer. Credit where it's due lie him or not.
Click to expand...

Did I dispute that? No, I dispute the claim that when it comes to slams, Nadal is the best. Because despite his winning % overall, his %s outside of RG aren't as outstanding (relatively speaking, they're still top 10 of all time which is incredible).

I also never said I didn't like Nadal, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things. Federer may be my favorite, but as a tennis fan in general I like Nadal very much as well.
 
A

absurdo

Rookie
i dont see the relevance of this stats. federer is 31 years old. what was his winning percentage when he was 26 years old? maybe with those numbers we could compare it to nadal and novak.

or we can wait until nadal and novak are 30 years old and then we can check the numbers again...
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
absurdo said:
i dont see the relevance of this stats. federer is 31 years old. what was his winning percentage when he was 26 years old? maybe with those numbers we could compare it to nadal and novak.

or we can wait until nadal and novak are 30 years old and then we can check the numbers again...
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Everybody knows that both Rafa and Djoker had one prime year each (2010 and 2011, respectively), any losses from other years don't count. Federer has been in his prime since he first came on tour, and his losses should overwhelm all the silly records he has.
 
S

SStrikerR

Hall of Fame
In all honesty, most stats are irrelevant until all their careers are over. Because of the difference in primes and how long a player declines for before they retire, even stats then won't be the most accurate of representations. But that's the fairest way.
 
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
SStrikerR said:
Did I dispute that? No, I dispute the claim that when it comes to slams, Nadal is the best. Because despite his winning % overall, his %s outside of RG aren't as outstanding (relatively speaking, they're still top 10 of all time which is incredible).

I also never said I didn't like Nadal, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things. Federer may be my favorite, but as a tennis fan in general I like Nadal very much as well.
Click to expand...

My post was more aimed a couple of sentences from the OP. I ended up replying to you about the king of clay bit and just made my whole point cohesive that's all. Wasn't an attack.
 
A

absurdo

Rookie
@ bauer

sure, its the same thing. but not to this topic. to this discussion is totally irrelevant if nadal started winning grand slam matches with 19 or 21, because the percentage cannot improve or recede backwards, only towards the future. so, if nadal started winning at 19 but his percentage is only a bit better than federer who is 5 years older, the obvious conclusion is that nadal, if he continues to play until his 30s, will probably not be able to stay in front. unless he has twilight carrear as good as federer's.

the other way to stay in front is quit playing before the stats go down. but then again, percentage doesnt mean much, because we would have to compare number of matches played.
 
Zarfot Z

Zarfot Z

Professional
TheF1Bob said:
Them stats proves with out a shadow of a doubt how great Novak Djokovic will become over the next 5 years, at least.

Feds done well but Nadal? LOL, take away the clay and he wouldn't be in the top 50.
Click to expand...

Nadal is still a pretty solid hard court player IMO. His success on clay seems to overshadow his performances on HC. Remember, he has won AO and USO titles.
 
mellowyellow

mellowyellow

Legend
Didn't Nadal miss a few slams early in his career because of injury? This would skew the percentage as we see it now. Also would really like to see how the oppositon played throughout their careers ranked on the slams respective of those surfaces. Meaning who played the better opp on clay at the French, and the better HC at AusO/USO and grass "specialist" at Wimby not going by ranking, even though it is somewhat subjective.
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
A very good thread. Nice topic!

Few observations:

1. An overall win percentage doesn't tell you the story. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer didn't really bloom right from the start to this all conquering monster they are today. Everybody needs time to settle (Nadal on clay is a rare exception). I dont like to consider the absolute peak performances either. That limits the consideration to just 4 or 5 years. I like the "extended peak" or the "prime" factor. A good 7-10 years when the player is somewhat on the top of his game. For Roger it should be 2003-2010. For Rafa it should be 2007-2014 (ideally it should be 2005-2014 just on clay). For Djoker it should be 2008-2014 (1 year less sadly).

2. One shouldn't blame Nadal for being too good on one surface. That's penalizing the wrong factor. If you're too good on something, isn't that worth hailing? The important factor to look at is how not bad they are on the worst surface/slam. Consider this, who is a better player here:

Player A: 2 - 9 - 2 - 2 (total 15 slams)
Player B: 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 (total 4 slams)

Whose record suggests he is a better all courter? Of course Player A, even though Player B exhibits lesser deviation from the average. Because Player A was at least " 2 good everywhere", while B only "1 good by the same measure". You can extend the same metric to win% as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's updated stat, for their prime as I listed above:

Overall Grand Slam Winning Percentage
Nadal - 89.7%
Federer - 91.5%
Djokovic - 87.4%

Australian Open
Nadal - 85.7%
Federer - 92%
Djokovic - 93%

French Open
Nadal - 98.1% (98.5% if I consider from 05-14)
Federer - 83.7%
Djokovic - 82.1%

Wimbledon
Nadal - 85.7%
Federer - 96.2%
Djokovic - 87.5%

U.S. Open
Nadal - 89.2% (the biggest jump I can see!)
Federer - 94%
Djokovic - 87%

So you see who wins? Nadal. I know there are other metrics to consider as well to judge all-court-ness and given his game, in my mind Federer is the best all courter (especially considering Federer had very few bad loses during his time). But slam record is not one that shows it. Here Nadal is the clear winner for me. In other words, Nadal is at least 85.7% good everywhere.

1. Nadal (85.7%)
2. Federer (83.7%)
3. Djokovic (82.1%)

Lastly, Djokovic has a good chance of eclipsing even Federer, if he reaches at least semi in Roland Garros next year :)
 
Chico

Chico

Banned
McEnroeisanartist said:
Overall Grand Slam Winning Percentage
Nadal - 87.71% - 2nd best all time
Federer - 87.14% - 3rd best all time
Djokovic - 83.12% - 6th best all time

Australian Open
Nadal - 83.3% - 7th best all time
Federer - 87.5% - 3rd best all time
Djokovic - 86.5% - 4th best all time

French Open
Nadal -98.1% - 1st best all time
Federer - 80.6% - 7th best all time
Djokovic - 79.5% - 8th best all time

Wimbledon
Nadal - 85.7% - 7th best all time
Federer - 90.4% - 2nd best all time
Djokovic - 82.0 - 10th best all time

U.S. Open
Nadal - 81.0% - 9th best all time
Federer - 89.7% - 1st best all time
Djokovic - 84.6% - 4th best all time

Federer is top 3 at three of the four grand slams. Nadal is top 3 at one of the four grand slams. Federer's lowest is 7th at one grand slam. Nadal is 7th or lower at 3 of the four grand slams.

It is staggering how much Nadal's beyond awesome success at the French Open inflates his grand slam winning percentage.

Interestingly enough, these are the only three players in history to be top 10 at all four grand slams (minimum 20 matches).
Click to expand...

And some here claim Djokovic is not all time great, and is barely tier 3 player. :roll: Ridiculous.
 
ollinger

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Whereas the OP seems to salivate over small and statistically insignificant differences, those of us with science and statistical backgrounds are trained to look for MEANINGFUL differences. That said, only two things jump out: Nadal's stunning success at the French compared to others, and Fed's somewhat less stunning but nonetheless impressive success at Wimbledon compared to others. The rest is all about small and not very meaningful differences.
 
C

coloskier

Legend
kandamrigam said:
A very good thread. Nice topic!

Few observations:

1. An overall win percentage doesn't tell you the story. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer didn't really bloom right from the start to this all conquering monster they are today. Everybody needs time to settle (Nadal on clay is a rare exception). I dont like to consider the absolute peak performances either. That limits the consideration to just 4 or 5 years. I like the "extended peak" or the "prime" factor. A good 7-10 years when the player is somewhat on the top of his game. For Roger it should be 2003-2010. For Rafa it should be 2007-2014 (ideally it should be 2005-2014 just on clay). For Djoker it should be 2008-2014 (1 year less sadly).

2. One shouldn't blame Nadal for being too good on one surface. That's penalizing the wrong factor. If you're too good on something, isn't that worth hailing? The important factor to look at is how not bad they are on the worst surface/slam. Consider this, who is a better player here:

Player A: 2 - 9 - 2 - 2 (total 15 slams)
Player B: 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 (total 4 slams)

Whose record suggests he is a better all courter? Of course Player A, even though Player B exhibits lesser deviation from the average. Because Player A was at least " 2 good everywhere", while B only "1 good by the same measure". You can extend the same metric to win% as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's updated stat, for their prime as I listed above:

Overall Grand Slam Winning Percentage
Nadal - 89.7%
Federer - 91.5%
Djokovic - 87.4%

Australian Open
Nadal - 85.7%
Federer - 92%
Djokovic - 93%

French Open
Nadal - 98.1% (98.5% if I consider from 05-14)
Federer - 83.7%
Djokovic - 82.1%

Wimbledon
Nadal - 85.7%
Federer - 96.2%
Djokovic - 87.5%

U.S. Open
Nadal - 89.2% (the biggest jump I can see!)
Federer - 94%
Djokovic - 87%

So you see who wins? Nadal. I know there are other metrics to consider as well to judge all-court-ness and given his game, in my mind Federer is the best all courter (especially considering Federer had very few bad loses during his time). But slam record is not one that shows it. Here Nadal is the clear winner for me. In other words, Nadal is at least 85.7% good everywhere.

1. Nadal (85.7%)
2. Federer (83.7%)
3. Djokovic (82.1%)

Lastly, Djokovic has a good chance of eclipsing even Federer, if he reaches at least semi in Roland Garros next year :)
Click to expand...

So, Fed leads in 2 of the 4 slams and is 2nd in the other 2 slams and you consider Nadal #1 who only leads in one slam and is only 2nd in another??? You must have flunked math.
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
With respect, I thing these statistics are not helpful as it either penalises the late developer or the late retiree. If Federer plays for another 10 years these favourable looking stats will diminish. It needs to be looked at in context of how many total matches have been played at each slam and weighted accordingly. Or take the best 10 consecutive years of a player's career and chop off the two tails!?
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
kandamrigam said:
A very good thread. Nice topic!

Few observations:

1. An overall win percentage doesn't tell you the story. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer didn't really bloom right from the start to this all conquering monster they are today. Everybody needs time to settle (Nadal on clay is a rare exception). I dont like to consider the absolute peak performances either. That limits the consideration to just 4 or 5 years. I like the "extended peak" or the "prime" factor. A good 7-10 years when the player is somewhat on the top of his game. For Roger it should be 2003-2010. For Rafa it should be 2007-2014 (ideally it should be 2005-2014 just on clay). For Djoker it should be 2008-2014 (1 year less sadly).

2. One shouldn't blame Nadal for being too good on one surface. That's penalizing the wrong factor. If you're too good on something, isn't that worth hailing? The important factor to look at is how not bad they are on the worst surface/slam. Consider this, who is a better player here:

Player A: 2 - 9 - 2 - 2 (total 15 slams)
Player B: 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 (total 4 slams)

Whose record suggests he is a better all courter? Of course Player A, even though Player B exhibits lesser deviation from the average. Because Player A was at least " 2 good everywhere", while B only "1 good by the same measure". You can extend the same metric to win% as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's updated stat, for their prime as I listed above:

Overall Grand Slam Winning Percentage
Nadal - 89.7%
Federer - 91.5%
Djokovic - 87.4%

Australian Open
Nadal - 85.7%
Federer - 92%
Djokovic - 93%

French Open
Nadal - 98.1% (98.5% if I consider from 05-14)
Federer - 83.7%
Djokovic - 82.1%

Wimbledon
Nadal - 85.7%
Federer - 96.2%
Djokovic - 87.5%

U.S. Open
Nadal - 89.2% (the biggest jump I can see!)
Federer - 94%
Djokovic - 87%

So you see who wins? Nadal. I know there are other metrics to consider as well to judge all-court-ness and given his game, in my mind Federer is the best all courter (especially considering Federer had very few bad loses during his time). But slam record is not one that shows it. Here Nadal is the clear winner for me. In other words, Nadal is at least 85.7% good everywhere.

1. Nadal (85.7%)
2. Federer (83.7%)
3. Djokovic (82.1%)

Lastly, Djokovic has a good chance of eclipsing even Federer, if he reaches at least semi in Roland Garros next year :)
Click to expand...


In reference to your 'prime1' argument you need to be consistent and use the same number of years for each player.

The greater the sample size (more years) the better indication of proving anything statistically relevant from it.

Maybe you should come back again in 3 years when it is clear the Djokovic and Nadal are way past their respective primes and see how the numbers stack up. Will be a very interesting exercise.
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
Kandamagram: I'm also confused how you got to your concluding numbers at the bottom. They are a calculation of what exactly?

To be fair you would also have to record a non-show at a grand slam during your chosen sample years, as a loss too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vive le beau jeu !

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
ah, those endless winning % discussions...

it's a bit like assessing the difficulty of climbing a mountain pass by bike ! sometimes if you take into account the 'approach', the average slope will look 'easier', but it doesn't mean the climb is...
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
coloskier said:
So, Fed leads in 2 of the 4 slams and is 2nd in the other 2 slams and you consider Nadal #1 who only leads in one slam and is only 2nd in another??? You must have flunked math.
Click to expand...
I call for everyone else's service here in that case. Kindly let us both know whose math is flunked..

I very much explained how my math works. I also phrased it well to convey why it makes sense. I'm saying Nadal is 85.7% good "at the minimum" everywhere. While Federer is only 83.7%. Nadal can play everywhere and win 85.7% of the time, which is guaranteed. When Federer plays, only 83.7% is guaranteed, across surfaces (or surface irrespective). Makes sense?

Your logic is not sound according to me. Consider these records of 3 players in 4 tournaments (in A-R-W-U format)

Player A: 83% - 83% - 83% - 20%
Player B: 80% - 80% - 80% - 70%
Player C: 15% - 15% - 15% - 15%

According to you here Player A is the best all courter because he leads in 3 categories and is second in the last category. It's an easy victory for B in my view.
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
YetAnotherFedFan said:
With respect, I thing these statistics are not helpful as it either penalises the late developer or the late retiree.
Click to expand...

Why does it penalizes the late developer? I'm curious to know. I took the best 8 years of each player (Novak only 7, since I thought its harsh to count his first major (I dont mean slams here) year in tennis which is 2007. From 2008 he was more or less well rounded, playing good on clay, and making to semis of all slams by then).

YetAnotherFedFan said:
If Federer plays for another 10 years these favourable looking stats will diminish.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you meant. I considered Federer' prime as 2003-2010. I think its reasonable.

YetAnotherFedFan said:
It needs to be looked at in context of how many total matches have been played at each slam and weighted accordingly.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's good point. But its going to be tough. Surely Nadal will have much less played on grass since he now makes a habit of exiting early at wimbledon. How will I compensate that?

YetAnotherFedFan said:
Or take the best 10 consecutive years of a player's career and chop off the two tails!?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's more or less what I did, except I didn't choose best years based on "result", but their "game".
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
YetAnotherFedFan said:
In reference to your 'prime1' argument you need to be consistent and use the same number of years for each player.

The greater the sample size (more years) the better indication of proving anything statistically relevant from it.

Maybe you should come back again in 3 years when it is clear the Djokovic and Nadal are way past their respective primes and see how the numbers stack up. Will be a very interesting exercise.
Click to expand...

I counted best 8 years of Federer and Nadal, and 7 of Djoker, all based on their game, from my understanding. Result based analysis not the right approach to take here. I know I have to wait and see how Nadal and Djoker will perform next few seasons. Interesting exercise, yeah indeed! :)
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
YetAnotherFedFan said:
Kandamagram: I'm also confused how you got to your concluding numbers at the bottom. They are a calculation of what exactly?

To be fair you would also have to record a non-show at a grand slam during your chosen sample years, as a loss too.
Click to expand...

You're right. That makes it fairer. I will do accordingly. I have done more work here. I will also post the entire table. I dont them have right now :cry:

I'm a little tired here. Cant you figure out how I reached those figures at the bottom? :???: Or please read my response to coloskier :)
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
@YetAnotherFedFan

May be I was unclear. What I mean is Nadal's worst slam record of all slams is at Wimbledon which is 85.7%. He has won more than that everywhere else. Federer's worst record is at Roland Garros which is 83.7% win record. It makes Nadal's base level above Federer. It's actually the simple math we do subconsciously when someone says Agassi is a better all courter than Sampras because former has won RG, while latter has not, irrespective of how good (or better than Agassi) he was on other slams (Wimbledon, US Open).
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
kandamrigam said:
Lastly, Djokovic has a good chance of eclipsing even Federer, if he reaches at least semi in Roland Garros next year :)
Click to expand...

Apologies to everyone. The above statement is simply wrong. Novak will need to win RG next year to eclipse Federer. If he wins, his worst slam winning pc will be 84% which will be above Federer (assuming he will keep up the performances in other slams as usual, and not completely mess it up :))
 
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
kandamrigam said:
Apologies to everyone. The above statement is simply wrong. Novak will need to win RG next year to eclipse Federer. If he wins, his worst slam winning pc will be 84% which will be above Federer (assuming he will keep up the performances in other slams as usual, and not completely mess it up :))
Click to expand...

that you have to resort to extreme examples to make your argument even remotely palatable is telling (i.e. 83, 83, 83, 20) (really??). how about 92, 84, 96, 94 vs 86, 98, 86, 89?

As long as everyone seems to be entitled to their own ridiculous logic, here's mine:
Let's translate the % to letter grades: A, B, A, A vs B, A, B, B.
i.e. GPA = 3.75 vs 3.25 (assuming 3-credits per course)
Oops!

Also, Nadal skipped Wimbledon in 2009, and USO in 2014, which sort of reduces one year in your "7" year comparison. Pretty ingenious (NOT) of you to have started counting Nadal from 2007 (well into his peak) vs Federer (2003, not even a single slam winner).
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
fed_rulz said:
that you have to resort to extreme examples to make your argument even remotely palatable is telling (i.e. 83, 83, 83, 20) (really??). how about 92, 84, 96, 94 vs 86, 98, 86, 89?
Click to expand...

I will tell you. I took an extreme example to illustrate a point, that his (the original guy who came up with his) approach is not idiot-proof. The extremity is only to make it clear, since from less extreme examples the idiocy of his approach wasn't clear to him. Of course any logic to be good enough must be foolproof/future-proof under any condition. If he has a different take in such extreme conditions I would like to hear, but I didn't see there, and his intention is not obvious. May be he wanted to account for the margin, standard deviation etc.

While my logic is sound. I dont even have the opinion that mine is "a better" solution. I believe mine is "the solution". It is what logically tells us who could play equally on all surfaces "the best". Here's an extreme example to make my logic look stupid (just an attempt):

Player A: 83, 83, 83, 3
Player B: 8, 8, 8, 8

or

Player A: 83, 83, 83, 3
Player B: 8, 8, 8, 95

Yes according to me B is a better all courter in both scenarios. It's the same logic behind Agassi being the better all courter than Sampras even though latter has won almost twice the slams former has. I would like to hear your response.

fed_rulz said:
As long as everyone seems to be entitled to their own ridiculous logic, here's mine:
Let's translate the % to letter grades: A, B, A, A vs B, A, B, B.
i.e. GPA = 3.75 vs 3.25 (assuming 3-credits per course)
Oops!
Click to expand...

Reasonable logic. A grading system is also great. It can ignore the reasonable margins. But disputes arise when you tell ppl who how you grade. Who deserves A and who B. I would like to hear! :) I believe mine is appropriate (though deciding primes will be disputable) once prime is established.

fed_rulz said:
Also, Nadal skipped Wimbledon in 2009, and USO in 2014, which sort of reduces one year in your "7" year comparison. Pretty ingenious (NOT) of you to have started counting Nadal from 2007 (well into his peak) vs Federer (2003, not even a single slam winner).
Click to expand...

Good point about absences. While both approaches has its merit and is subjective, I do personally think absences should be accounted for. I will recalculate!

I will clarify about my "prime selection" though. I didn't choose it based on result. I repeat that over and over. I did based on their game. How good it was. Nadal was a multiple slam winner by 2007, but there is no doubt in my mind he was true-blue clay courter then. His peak all court-ness started from 2008. I went back a year to add to his peak as what I call prime. In fact I haven't included his clay and grass results from 2005-2006 as well in my analysis (which are really good anyway). I didnt care if he had won a slam or not. For Federer, his game really took off from 2004. Just like I did with Nadal, I went back a year and added to Federer's prime, ie 2003.

I didnt find penalizing Nadal for being good on something fair. Statistically speaking its rarer for someone to bloom on every surface right from their onset. Federer needed time to find his footing everywhere. Its equally applicable for Nadal. Just that he had a game tailor-made for clay which is a lot physicality related and Nadal was physically better then. Btw, Federer did have a Slam in 2003 :)
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
fed_rulz said:
that you have to resort to extreme examples to make your argument even remotely palatable is telling (i.e. 83, 83, 83, 20) (really??). how about 92, 84, 96, 94 vs 86, 98, 86, 89?
Click to expand...

In your example "86, 98, 86, 89" wins. Any problem with it? I'm by no means telling who is a greater player. I'm only telling who is a better all-courter. In other words who could play all Slams equally well "the best"
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
fed_rulz said:
how about 92, 84, 96, 94 vs 86, 98, 86, 89?
Click to expand...

Let's say Tom is "92, 84, 96, 94" and Dick is "86, 98, 86, 89".

Now here's another way of looking at it:

Can Tom play at every major and have a win record of 50% everywhere? Yes.
Can Dick do it? Yes.

Can Tom play at every major and have a win record of 80% everywhere? Yes.
Can Dick do it? Yes.

Can Tom play at every major and have a win record of 85% everywhere? No.
Can Dick do it? Yes.

So who is better equipped here? Dick obviously. Tom can't go beyond 84%. and that is since we have 4 tournaments and all 4 are of equal importance. For 3 tournaments, it's Tom who is better.

If one is merely asking who is a better player overall, though subjective, "Tom" is a great answer.
 
kandamrgam

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
This is a broad break down of performances in Majors in terms of total win percentage during their prime (disputable hmmm) across 4 different categories:

a. by win % in every Slam tournament.
b. by win % on the three main surfaces - clay, hard and grass.
c. by win % on fast and slow Slams. AO and RG are slow while W and UO are fast.
d. by win % on nature of surface, whether its synthetic or natural. AO and UO are synthetic, while RG and W are natural.

The player across the figure in red is the winner for that category. For more on the criterion please read previous posts.

Prime Federer: 2003 - 2010 (8 years)
Prime Nadal: 2007 - 2014 (8 years)
Prime Djokovic: 2008 - 2014 (7 years)



Case I: A missed tournament is not counted
md2tfm.png


The result shows Nadal wins in two categories, while Federer wins in two other. Honours shared.

1. Nadal is at least 85.71% good at every Slam and every surface which is better than all others.
2. If speed of surface is accounted, Federer has superior record. He is at least 88.17% good be it fast or slow. He also doesn't care if surface synthetic or natural, he is at least 90.63% good everywhere.
3. Djoker is consistently the worst performer in all the criteria. But the good news for him is he can change a few results next year. If he wins RG next year, he is going to push Federer to 3rd place in first two categories. If he wins Wimbledon he will push Nadal to 3rd place in 3rd category, and if he wins US Open as well then he can tie with Federer in the last category."



Case II: A missed tournament is counted as lost in first round
27zg5qq.png


When absence in a tournament is counted as a loss (which is reasonable considering Slams are mandatory tournaments), things change dramatically. Now Federer is the undisputed all-courter, as he is the leader in all the categories. Nadal and Djokovic share the second place as each comes 2nd in two categories and last in the other two categories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Comparing Federer and Nadal Grand Slam Sets % Won
Replies
3
Views
2K
Talker
Talker
M
Percentage of Grand Slam Matches Won - By Each Grand Slam - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Replies
14
Views
1K
jg153040
J
M
With his win, Novak jumps ahead of Sampras for Grand Slam winning percentage
Replies
4
Views
765
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
M
Rank Big 3 Grand Slam Distribution Achievement by Most Likely to Happen
Replies
1
Views
311
Grgisme
G
M
For the Big 3 - Is this the biggest Grand Slam of their careers?
Replies
18
Views
421
King No1e
King No1e
Top