Average opponent rank (geometric mean)

[Lew II]

Career:

Djokovic 23.4
Federer 26.9
Nadal 27.0

Big Tournaments:

Djokovic 19.9
Federer 21.6
Nadal 22.0

Grand Slam:

Djokovic 26.7
Federer 28.4
Nadal 29.6

Tournaments won:

Djokovic 18.7
Nadal 25.0
Federer 25.1

Big Tournaments won:

Djokovic 15.6
Federer 18.2
Nadal 19.4

Grand Slam won:

Djokovic 20.3
Nadal 22.8
Federer 25.3

 

[travlerajm]

These results are effectively just the inverse of the average rankings, because the higher seed will play lower seeded opponents.

 

[TheIntrovert]

I swear I’ve already seen this thread before

 

[True Fanerer]

I swear I’ve already seen this thread before

That's because you have in about 250 different ways. Some even the same probably if we look close enough.

 

[LordGoolbis]

I swear I’ve already seen this thread before

Welcome to the lewtrix.

 

[Towny]

We get it. Fraud = trash, weak-era vulture. Djokovic = GOAT/BOAT/SOAT. And Nadal >>>> Fraud but Novak >>>> Nadal. The inevitable conclusion of 99% of OP's threads

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Guys don't respond and see what he does.

If you notice, all his threads follow the same pattern:

1) post cherry-picked stats with an implication in the topic
2) leave everyone point at various obvious problems
3) fuel the reaction with some more erraneous comments
4) engage with a logical fallacy, more cherry-picked stats or straight up ignoring the points already being made
5) rinse and repeat

 

[Phoenix1983]

Step 1: see thread starter is @Lew II

Step 2: assume thread will be a stat favouring Novak Djokovic

Step 3: profit (by not reading)

 

[Phoenix1983]

Guys don't respond and see what he does.

If you notice, all his threads follow the same pattern:

1) post cherry-picked stats with an implication in the topic
2) leave everyone point at various obvious problems
3) fuel the reaction with some more erraneous comments
4) engage with a logical fallacy, more cherry-picked stats or straight up ignoring the points already being made
5) rinse and repeat

I genuinely hadn't seen your post before I posted mine, but yes, these are my thoughts exactly.

 

[Third Serve]

Step 1: see thread starter is @Lew II

Step 2: assume thread will be a stat favouring Novak Djokovic

Step 3: profit (by not reading)

The thread is kinda interesting to read...

Spoiler

That is, if you're high

 

[NatF]

The thread is kinda interesting to read...

Spoiler

That is, if you're high

Not sure about that, let's ask @MichaelNadal

 

[ChaelAZ]

So essentially they all battled the same level opponents, unless you are a fanboi and want to split hairs over a few spots of ranking.

 

[Fridge]

So essentially they all battled the same level opponents, unless you are a fanboi and want to split hairs over a few spots of ranking.

It just goes to show that when people say that Nadal gets 'easy' draws that it is not true. In fact Fed gets the nod when it comes to easy draws.

 

[True Fanerer]

It just goes to show that when people say that Nadal gets 'easy' draws that it is not true. In fact Fed gets the nod when it comes to easy draws.

Nadal is last in 4/6 categories lol.

 

[ChaelAZ]

It just goes to show that when people say that Nadal gets 'easy' draws that it is not true. In fact Fed gets the nod when it comes to easy draws.

Well, a bit but not by any important margin. You are talking the average being at most about 5 spots of ranking, or the difference of playing saying Busta Agut (25) or David Goffin (20) currently. It also doesn't account for any higher level players that maybe had dropped. If Nadal or Djo played Fed in 2016 that would count as a 17th ranked player, but...it's Fed. And that would be across the board for all players who may be dangerous but in a ranking slump or coming back from injury.

Again, really the idea of consisten easy draws is silly. Sure, sometimes any of the three have a bit easier road, but as they say...it really is the luck of the draw.

Everything else is just fanbio player justification and posturing.

 

[Lew II]

Well, a bit but not by any important margin. You are talking the average being at most about 5 spots of ranking, or the difference of playing saying Busta Agut (25) or David Goffin (20) currently.

This is the geometric mean, not the arithmetic average.

It gives more weigth to small numbers (high ranking).

For example

1, 1, 1, 1, 100
arithmeric average: 20.8
geometric mean: 2.5

10, 10, 10, 10, 10
arithmetic average: 10
geometric mean: 10

 

[KINGRAFA]

.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

That's because you have in about 250 different ways. Some even the same probably if we look close enough.

Guys don't respond and see what he does.

If you notice, all his threads follow the same pattern:

1) post cherry-picked stats with an implication in the topic
2) leave everyone point at various obvious problems
3) fuel the reaction with some more erraneous comments
4) engage with a logical fallacy, more cherry-picked stats or straight up ignoring the points already being made
5) rinse and repeat

 

[ghostofMecir]

“Melesian Math.”

Looooool!

 

[travlerajm]

TTW post of the month.

 

[Lew II]

Average opponent rank in Slam finals/semifinals:

Djokovic 3.9
Nadal 4.8
Federer 5.1

in Slams won (F/SF):

Djokovic 4.4
Nadal 4.8
Federer 7.6

In Big Tournament finals/semifinals:

Djokovic 4.7
Nadal 5.8
Federer 5.9

in BT won (F/SF):

Djokovic 5.3
Nadal 6.6
Federer 7.3

 

[Lew II]

Average opponent rank in Slam finals/semifinals:

Djokovic 3.9
Nadal 4.8
Federer 5.1

in Slams won (F/SF):

Djokovic 4.4
Nadal 4.8
Federer 7.6

In Big Tournament finals/semifinals:

Djokovic 4.7
Nadal 5.8
Federer 5.9

in BT won (F/SF):

Djokovic 5.3
Nadal 6.6
Federer 7.3

Notice that in tournaments won F/SF, the ranking of the opponent is lower than in overall tournaments F/SF, except for Nadal in Slams (equal 4.8).

To show that higher ranking means tougher opposition.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

'Find Lew'

 

[Boom-Boom]

 

[joekapa]

Game set match, Djokovic.....