Another tough Slam for Novak

[Lew II]

lol sure thing

If the higher ranked players didn't make it far enough in the draw it means someone else was playing better than them. It's not enough to just look at ranking to determine how well someone was playing - there's a myriad of stat that we could look at.

You keep your stats, I keep mine

 

[NatF]

You keep your stats, I keep mine

Yours are irrelevant in the context of individual matches but you already know that.

 

[Lew II]

Yours are irrelevant in the context of individual matches but you already know that.

I think you're wrong.

 

[NatF]

I think you're wrong.

You think whatever is convenient for you

 

[TheAssassin]

It was a very tough final, and RBA had his usual resistance, losing in 4 sets. Overall though, he's had more challenging Wimbledon runs than this.

 

[Lew II]

You think whatever is convenient for you

I think what my logic leads me to think.

 

[NatF]

I think what my logic leads me to think.

Lol at it being logical to ignore actual match play when talking about the toughness of draws

 

[Lew II]

Lol at it being logical to ignore actual match play when talking about the toughness of draws

Logic leads me to think that I can't measure level of match play.

 

[NatF]

Logic leads me to think that I can't measure level of match play.

You probably can't...

 

[xFedal]

@Lew II

1. kohli
2. kudla
3. hurkacz
4. humbert
5. la goff
6. RBA
7.WIMBLEDON GOAT FEDERER
and you call this a tough draw



awww .... your GOAT candidate can't take this ?

Superior to Feds AO18 and Wimbledon 17 draw.

 

[Lew II]

You probably can't...

I think that no one can.

 

[NatF]

I think that no one can.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement tbh.

 

[Lew II]

That's a pretty ridiculous statement tbh.

Open a thread about the ratio of winners, unforced and distance run, or number of shots hit.

That could be interesting. Winners/unforced alone just makes look better matches with offensive players.

 

[NatF]

Open a thread about the ratio of winners, unforced and distance run, or number of shots hit.

That could be interesting. Winners/unforced alone just makes look better matches with offensive players.

I've never claimed it was that easy as to just look at winners/unforced errors, that's part of it but not all - however to state no one can possibly watch a tennis match and judge the level of play is simply inane.

 

[MS_07]

Never wrote that.

I wrote that they were easier than Novak's titles.

you directly never write that but your ever other post / stat is of that only .

 

[Lew II]

Updated the OP.

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 29/62 (46.8%)
Nadal 27/60 (45.0%)
Federer 30/77 (39.0%)

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big4

Djokovic 38/62 (61.3%)
Nadal 33/60 (55.0%)
Federer 35/77 (45.5%)

 

[Lew II]

Updated the OP.

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 29/62 (46.8%)
Nadal 27/60 (45.0%)
Federer 30/77 (39.0%)

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big4

Djokovic 38/62 (61.3%)
Nadal 33/60 (55.0%)
Federer 35/77 (45.5%)

Federer benefited from a start with 15-17 slam semifinals/finals without Big3 until AO 2006, when he racked 7 slam titles. After that the Slam race was:

Nadal 18
Djokovic 16
Federer 13

 

[Third Serve]

Federer benefited from a start with 15-17 slam semifinals/finals without Big3 until AO 2006, when he racked 7 slam titles. After that the Slam race was:

Nadal 18
Djokovic 16
Federer 13

It's a shame that those first few semifinals occurred in some of Federer's peak years, so excluding them also creates skewed statistics.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Updated the OP.

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 29/62 (46.8%)
Nadal 27/60 (45.0%)
Federer 30/77 (39.0%)

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big4

Djokovic 38/62 (61.3%)
Nadal 33/60 (55.0%)
Federer 35/77 (45.5%)

this is a funny example of how stats can be misleading. in this case the percentages given are just colinear with age

 

[Lew II]

It's a shame that those first few semifinals occurred in some of Federer's peak years, so excluding them also creates skewed statistics.

There's a problem with cause/effect relationship here. What if those were Fed's peak years because Big3 were not around?

 

[Third Serve]

There's a problem with cause/effect relationship here. What if those were Fed's peak years because Big3 were not around?

Well, we can look at win percentage excluding the Big 3 for every year and see if there is any big difference when the Big 3 are erased from the competition

2004: 74-6 becomes 74-5, which is 93%
2005: 81-4 becomes 81-3, which is 96%
2006: 92-5 becomes 88-1, which is 98% (!!!)
2007: 68-9 becomes 63-6, which is 91%
2008: 66-15 becomes 64-10, which is 86%
2009: 61-12 becomes 58-8, which is 87%
2010: 65-13 becomes 61-11, which is 84%
2011: 64-12 becomes 62-5, which is 89% (not bad)
2012: 71-12 becomes 68-8, which is 89%
2013: 45-17 becomes 45-11, which is 80%
2014: 73-12 becomes 70-9, which is 88%
2015: 63-11 becomes 59-6, which is 90% (hey, it's your favorite year!)
2016: 21-7 becomes 21-6, which is 77%
2017: 54-5 becomes 50-5, which is 90%
2018: 50-10 becomes 50-8, which is 86%
2019: 53-10 becomes 51-8, which is 87%

Only two seasons since 2007 have cracked 90% and 2004-2007 are still Fed's best seasons in terms of win percentage even without the Big 3. What is particularly interesting is that 2009 and 2010 have lower percentages than I would have guessed. He was wildly inconsistent in those years so I guess it makes sense.

 

[Lew II]

Well, we can look at win percentage excluding the Big 3 for every year and see if there is any big difference when the Big 3 are erased from the competition

2004: 74-6 becomes 74-5, which is 93%
2005: 81-4 becomes 81-3, which is 96%
2006: 92-5 becomes 88-1, which is 98% (!!!)
2007: 68-9 becomes 63-6, which is 91%
2008: 66-15 becomes 64-10, which is 86%
2009: 61-12 becomes 58-8, which is 87%
2010: 65-13 becomes 61-11, which is 84%
2011: 64-12 becomes 62-5, which is 89% (not bad)
2012: 71-12 becomes 68-8, which is 89%
2013: 45-17 becomes 45-11, which is 80%
2014: 73-12 becomes 70-9, which is 88%
2015: 63-11 becomes 59-6, which is 90% (hey, it's your favorite year!)
2016: 21-7 becomes 21-6, which is 77%
2017: 54-5 becomes 50-5, which is 90%
2018: 50-10 becomes 50-8, which is 86%
2019: 53-10 becomes 51-8, which is 87%

Only two seasons since 2007 have cracked 90% and 2004-2007 are still Fed's best seasons in terms of win percentage even without the Big 3. What is particularly interesting is that 2009 and 2010 have lower percentages than I would have guessed. He was wildly inconsistent in those years so I guess it makes sense.

Simplicistic view, Federer in 2015 said that he was at his best but he lacked the confidence of when he was winning many matches in a row.

Plus in the last decade he played much higher ranked players.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Simplicisistic view, Federer in 2015 said that he lacked the confidence of when he was winning many matches in a row.

Plus in the last decade he played much higher ranked players.

LOL.

 

[Third Serve]

Simplicisistic view, Federer in 2015 said that he lacked the confidence of when he was winning many matches in a row.

Plus in the last decade he played much higher ranked players.

I'm just playing your game.

 

[Lew II]

I'm just playing your game.

I know but it's not enough to tell the whole story.

 

[BringBackSV]

Federer despite he had a very tough slam (big3 in both final and semi) is still the one who had it the easiest in his career. Djokovic the hardest.

Slam finals played against Big3

Nadal 17/27 (63.0%)
Djokovic 13/25 (52%)
Federer 14/ 31 (45.2%)

Slam semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 16/37 (43.2%)
Federer 16/46 (34.8%)
Nadal 10/33 (30.3%)

Slam finals played against Big4

Djokovic 20/25 (80%)
Nadal 17/27 (63.0%)
Federer 17/31 (54.8%)

Slam semifinals played against Big4

Djokovic 18/37 (48.6%)
Nadal 16/33 (48.5%)
Federer 18/46 (39.1%)

Big 4 ? Is the 4th guy Stan?

 

[Lew II]

@Third Serve

I'm not excluding anything, btw. 2003-06 were Fed's peak? Good, but they were weaker years because Big3 were not around yet.

Peak in strong years > peak in weak years

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Well, we can look at win percentage excluding the Big 3 for every year and see if there is any big difference when the Big 3 are erased from the competition

2004: 74-6 becomes 74-5, which is 93%
2005: 81-4 becomes 81-3, which is 96%
2006: 92-5 becomes 88-1, which is 98% (!!!)
2007: 68-9 becomes 63-6, which is 91%
2008: 66-15 becomes 64-10, which is 86%
2009: 61-12 becomes 58-8, which is 87%
2010: 65-13 becomes 61-11, which is 84%
2011: 64-12 becomes 62-5, which is 89% (not bad)
2012: 71-12 becomes 68-8, which is 89%
2013: 45-17 becomes 45-11, which is 80%
2014: 73-12 becomes 70-9, which is 88%
2015: 63-11 becomes 59-6, which is 90% (hey, it's your favorite year!)
2016: 21-7 becomes 21-6, which is 77%
2017: 54-5 becomes 50-5, which is 90%
2018: 50-10 becomes 50-8, which is 86%
2019: 53-10 becomes 51-8, which is 87%

Only two seasons since 2007 have cracked 90% and 2004-2007 are still Fed's best seasons in terms of win percentage even without the Big 3. What is particularly interesting is that 2009 and 2010 have lower percentages than I would have guessed. He was wildly inconsistent in those years so I guess it makes sense.

These stats clearly show that the weak era began in 2011 and then there was another couple of massive dropoffs in quality in 2014 and 2017 allowing Fed to recover his declining win percentages each time despite declining in overall level. 2007-10 strongest era confirmed. The data can’t lie

 

[Lew II]

These stats clearly show that the weak era began in 2011 and then there was another couple of massive dropoffs in quality in 2014 and 2017 allowing Fed to recover his declining win percentages each time despite declining in overall level. 2007-10 strongest era confirmed. The data can’t lie

Big3 win percentage before 2011: 80.2%
Big3 win percentage since 2011: 85.9%

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Big3 win percentage before 2011: 80.2%
Big3 win percentage since 2011: 85.9%

Great, further evidence of weak era starting in 2011

 

[tudwell]

I know but it's not enough to tell the whole story.

Hey, you’re starting to get it!

 

[KINGROGER]

@Third Serve

I'm not excluding anything, btw. 2003-06 were Fed's peak? Good, but they were weaker years because Big3 were not around yet.

Peak in strong years > peak in weak years

2007 and 2011 are on par for strong years and Federer / Djokovic dominated both

 

[ChaelAZ]

This AO has been a cake walk for Djo.
Fed has had an easier draw but is making it tough on himself.
Nadal has had some quality opponents and is doing well to get through this year.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

These metrics will always paint Federer I'm a bad light because hes 5-6 years older And was already through a third of his career when Djokovic and Nadal became consistent threats.Your metric for assessing difficulty will only work for players of the same age group.

Not Nadal.. Nadal was a consistent treat by 2005.. and Roger successful winning career started in mid 2003... Rafa beat already fed in Miami 2004 Masters when Fed had only 2 GS to his name. People should stop to put both Rafa and Novak on the same sentence.. Rafa got popular and relevant much earlier.. 2004/2005 is a whole different generation from 2007/2008... By 2004/2005 players like safin, hewitt, roddick still were powerful.and a big threat..but the same players were already long gone their peak by 2007/2008.

 

[junior74]

Updated the OP.

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 29/62 (46.8%)
Nadal 27/60 (45.0%)
Federer 30/77 (39.0%)

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big4

Djokovic 38/62 (61.3%)
Nadal 33/60 (55.0%)
Federer 35/77 (45.5%)

Utterly pointless and the worst part is you know it.

 

[SummerBreeze]

No, it means that Federer had some easy years before the three other other ATGs of the 2000s peaked. Djokovic and Nadal are yet to have really easy years.

No ATG other than Fed was born from 1972 to 1985, don't forget it.

They already have really easy years especially past 30 since there is not 1 generation but 2 missing .
Nadal for example won his first 2 slams before 2006 so he started winning slams in the same era you call 'easy', oh the irony.
Until 2008 getting past these bums seemed pretty tough though outside of clay.

You statistics are always so subjective it's not even funny anymore. You pulled in big 4 to make the Nadal stats seem a bit better too.

Since both Nadal and Djokic turned 30 there was not even a BIG4 anymore.

Vulutring the absolutely weakest era ever where the only competition is and oldtimer. Well done bruh

 

[SummerBreeze]

What was he gonna say.. I'm washe

Simplicistic view, Federer in 2015 said that he was at his best but he lacked the confidence of when he was winning many matches in a row.

Plus in the last decade he played much higher ranked players.

Is that a measurable metric now that he says something? Can you bring also into account then that most of the tour including Nadal and Djokovic call him the goat?

 

[Bianca007]

No, it means that Federer had some easy years before the three other other ATGs of the 2000s peaked. Djokovic and Nadal are yet to have really easy years.

No ATG other than Fed was born from 1972 to 1985, don't forget it.

People can debate all this for eternity. End of day results what count. If Federer loses again to Djokovic there is no question that Djokovic is the superior player of the two.

 

[The_Order]

Well, we can look at win percentage excluding the Big 3 for every year and see if there is any big difference when the Big 3 are erased from the competition

2004: 74-6 becomes 74-5, which is 93%
2005: 81-4 becomes 81-3, which is 96%
2006: 92-5 becomes 88-1, which is 98% (!!!)
2007: 68-9 becomes 63-6, which is 91%
2008: 66-15 becomes 64-10, which is 86%
2009: 61-12 becomes 58-8, which is 87%
2010: 65-13 becomes 61-11, which is 84%
2011: 64-12 becomes 62-5, which is 89% (not bad)
2012: 71-12 becomes 68-8, which is 89%
2013: 45-17 becomes 45-11, which is 80%
2014: 73-12 becomes 70-9, which is 88%
2015: 63-11 becomes 59-6, which is 90% (hey, it's your favorite year!)
2016: 21-7 becomes 21-6, which is 77%
2017: 54-5 becomes 50-5, which is 90%
2018: 50-10 becomes 50-8, which is 86%
2019: 53-10 becomes 51-8, which is 87%

Only two seasons since 2007 have cracked 90% and 2004-2007 are still Fed's best seasons in terms of win percentage even without the Big 3. What is particularly interesting is that 2009 and 2010 have lower percentages than I would have guessed. He was wildly inconsistent in those years so I guess it makes sense.

2008 till about 2014 had a stronger field though. Even if you remove Nadal and Djokovic from that time period, guys like Murray, Wawrinka (age 28+), Roddick(age 26+), Davydenko (age26+), Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych, Ferrer - those guys alone are tougher than having Hewitt, Roddick (age 25-), Agassi (age 34+), Davedenko (age 26-), Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Safin and Ljubicic.

 

[Third Serve]

2008 till about 2014 had a stronger field though. Even if you remove Nadal and Djokovic from that time period, guys like Murray, Wawrinka (age 28+), Roddick(age 26+), Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych, Ferrer - those guys alone are tougher than having Hewitt, Roddick (age 25-), Agassi (age 34+), Blake, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Safin and Ljubicic.

I agree, but I would adjust the years some more. You have to put 2007 in that list and 2010 and 2014 could be excluded. 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 are the two very strong periods.

 

[The_Order]

I agree, but I would adjust the years some more. You have to put 2007 in that list and 2010 and 2014 could be excluded. 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 are the two very strong periods.

All of Murray, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro were a non factor in 2007.

The only thing that made 2007 hard was Nadal peaking on grass and Novak coming of age.

 

[SummerBreeze]

All of Murray, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro were a non factor in 2007.

The only thing that made 2007 hard was Nadal peaking on grass and Novak coming of age.

Guys like Soderling, Tsonga, Ferrer, Nishikori and god knows who else making slam finals surely made that timewindow tough as hell :O

 

[Third Serve]

All of Murray, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro were a non factor in 2007.

The only thing that made 2007 hard was Nadal peaking on grass and Novak coming of age.

Nadal gave what might have been his second-best Wimbledon final performance and also had one of his best French Opens, Djokovic won Miami and Montreal in style, Davydenko went deep in the Slams, Nalbandian dialed it up to 11 in the indoor season. Definitely comparable with 2008, though it is slightly weaker. I might add that the top 3 collectively was just as strong as in 2008 and 2009. I'm just saying that if you have to include 2010 and 2014, you will need to include 2007 (and possibly 2005; I go back and forth on which one was stronger).

 

[KINGROGER]

All of Murray, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro were a non factor in 2007.

The only thing that made 2007 hard was Nadal peaking on grass and Novak coming of age.

Guys like Nalbandian, Roddick, Blake, Davydenko weren’t a factor in 2011-2013 either.

 

[BringBackWood]

Peaking Grandpa Fred providing another boost to Novak's goat credential