Best opponent rank (excluding self) in slams won for Big 3

[mahesh69a]

Federer		Nadal		Djokovic
Tournament	Best opponent seed	Tournament	Best opponent seed	Tournament	Best opponent seed
2003 W	4	2005 RG	1	2008 AO	1
2004 AO	2	2006 RG	1	2011 AO	2
2004 W	1	2007 RG	1	2011 W	1
2004 UO	3	2008 RG	1	2011 UO	1
2005 W	1	2008 W	1	2012 AO	1
2005 UO	2	2009 AO	1	2013 AO	2
2006 AO	4	2010 RG	4	2014 W	3
2006 W	1	2010 W	3	2015 AO	3
2006 UO	4	2010 UO	2	2015 W	1
2007 AO	6	2011 RG	2	2015 UO	1
2007 W	1	2012 RG	1	2016 AO	1
2007 UO	2	2013 RG	1	2016 RG	1
2008 UO	2	2013 UO	1	2018 W	2
2009 RG	4	2014 RG	1	2018 UO	3
2009 W	5	2017 RG	3	2019 AO	1
2010 AO	4	2017 UO	23	2019 W	1
2012 W	1	2018 RG	4	2020 AO	4
2017 AO	4	2019 RG	2	2021 AO	3
2017 W	5	2019 UO	4	2021 RG	2
2018 AO	5	2020 RG	1	2021 W	6
Average	61/20=3.05		58/20=2.9		40/20=2.00

Best ranked opponents (excluding self) in slams won.

Nadal's 2017 USO sticks out like an abomination.

Nadal faced #1 opponent 11 times, Djokovic faced 10 times (technically, Nadal was #2 opponent at RG 2021 - though we all know Nadal is always #1 at RG), Federer faced 5 times.

Usual disclaimers: Rank does not always imply form, some tougher opponents may be lower ranked etc. etc.

 

[mahesh69a]

Updated for 2021 Djokovic's wins and now that its 20-20-20, its a level comparison.

 

[Aabye5]

This is very interesting...

 

[Aabye5]

Medians -

Federer: 3.2
Nadal: 1
Djokovic: 1.5

 

[NintendoTennis1990]

Slams won without meeting a TOP 3:

Federer: 10
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 2



Seriously, Nadal is 2nd GOAT, why do people keep arguing Fed is

 

[King No1e]

That "23" over USO17. Poor Kandyman.

 

[Aabye5]

Slams won without meeting a TOP 3:

Federer: 10
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 2



Seriously, Nadal is 2nd GOAT, why do people keep arguing Fed is

Well, it will be interesting to see the average rank of all players played during a Slam win and during Slam losses. Someone was keeping track of this a few years ago, but I don't know who it was or where I saw it...

 

[Rosstour]

Slams won without meeting a TOP 3:

Federer: 10
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 2



Seriously, Nadal is 2nd GOAT, why do people keep arguing Fed is

Weeks at #1, & his total at RG is double what he won at all other Slams combined.

Fed and Djok have dominated the game for extended periods of time and Nadal never really did that.

 

[TripleATeam]

If we drop 2 lowest and 2 highest to account for outliers, we get 29/16 for Nadal, 28/16 for Djokovic, 48/16 for Federer.

 

[Aabye5]

Medians -

Federer: 3.2
Nadal: 1
Djokovic: 1.5

So in more than half of his Slam wins, Rafa played the no. 1 ranked played.

And in more than half of his Slam wins, Nole played either the no. 1 or no. 2 ranked player.

 

[Aabye5]

If we drop 2 lowest and 2 highest to account for outliers, we get 29/16 for Nadal, 28/16 for Djokovic, 48/16 for Federer.

Yes, that's why I was trying to look at median, because of the distribution of the data, although it is very imperfect too.

 

[TripleATeam]

Yes, that's why I was trying to look at median, because of the distribution of the data, although it is very imperfect too.

In extremely multimodal data medians begin to break down as a great metric. For instance if only 1 of Djokovic's opponents went from rank 2 to 1, his median goes up by 0.5.

I'd argue that a mean with the top 10% and bottom 10% removed is pretty close to a fair metric. Although nothing will get you "perfect" because your choice of average will impact the result you look for. There is no perfect metric.

 

[duaneeo]

So, in winning 2019 Wimbledon, Djokovic faced the #1 ranked opponent (other than himself).

Sounds great, until one realizes that this #1 ranked opponent was a 38-year-old who had first won Wimbledon sixteen years earlier.

 

[daphne]

So, in winning 2019 Wimbledon, Djokovic faced the #1 ranked opponent (other than himself).

Sounds great, until one realizes that this #1 ranked opponent was a 38-year-old who had first won Wimbledon sixteen years earlier.

But who had

 

[Aabye5]

In extremely multimodal data medians begin to break down as a great metric. For instance if only 1 of Djokovic's opponents went from rank 2 to 1, his median goes up by 0.5.

I'd argue that a mean with the top 10% and bottom 10% removed is pretty close to a fair metric. Although nothing will get you "perfect" because your choice of average will impact the result you look for. There is no perfect metric.

Of course nothing is perfect. I think though the fact that the data is unimodal and the fact that the Big 3 are the Big 3, the median is somewhat interesting.

Would you rather go through a draw with a top 10 (non-Big 3) player 3 times or two of the Big 3 players twice? For Nole and Rafa half of their matches are against #1 or #2 players. That means they faced another big 3 member, Medvedev, or Murray to get to the title. That's a hard draw no matter how you slice it....

 

[Aabye5]

So, in winning 2019 Wimbledon, Djokovic faced the #1 ranked opponent (other than himself).

Sounds great, until one realizes that this #1 ranked opponent was a 38-year-old who had first won Wimbledon sixteen years earlier.

The big 3 transcend age. No body looks at a Tom Brady team and says, "Eh, the guy is 40...can't be that tough."

 

[NST]

Slams won without meeting a TOP 3:

Federer: 10
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 2



Seriously, Nadal is 2nd GOAT, why do people keep arguing Fed is

It is very easy to turn this argument on its head. The fact that Federer didn't have to play Nadal who was ranked #2 to win many titles outside of clay is bad for Federer because he had easier opponents or is it bad for Rafa because he had many early exits? Federer had a very bad H2H with Nadal because he was constantly worse or because he made it to the final rounds of nearly every tournament for a decade, while Nadal didn't have to face Federer, when he was in bad form, because he was injured or out in the early rounds?

 

[Deleted member 771911]

I think it only really means anything if the rank indicates a standardised quality, which I don’t think ranking does.

 

[mike danny]

The big 3 transcend age. No body looks at a Tom Brady team and says, "Eh, the guy is 40...can't be that tough."

Doesn't work like that. Brady is from a team sport too.

 

[MadariKatu]

That "23" over USO17. Poor Kandyman.

That was Del Potro. Anderson was seeded 28th.

 

[duaneeo]

But who had

To answer your question, it was Federer who, a month shy of turning 38 and 16 years after first winning Wimbledon, made the final in 2019 beating the #28, #20, #7, #2 ranked players (while Nole, in typical Wimbledon fashion, didn't face a single top-20 player), then had two match points against the game's top player.

 

[daphne]

To answer your question, it was Federer who, a month shy of turning 38 and 16 years after first winning Wimbledon, made the final in 2019 beating the #28, #20, #7, #2 ranked players (while Nole, in typical Wimbledon fashion, didn't face a single top-20 player), then had two match points against the game's top player.

And? The point is...?

 

[RaulRamirez]

I appreciate the work involved, but I derive nothing useful - or telling - from this.

Questions (of a sort) to anyone:
* Everyone gets on Rafa for his 2017 US Open, as if it were his fault that he did not meet higher seeds. What the &*&^ was he supposed to do -- not try to win? This is imbecilic at best. And Kandy did make it to the following year's Wimby final...not so easy on hard or fast court when on.
** During Roger's legendary run in capturing the 2017 AO, he was the 17th seed. So, if someone (okay, it would be Rafa, but speaking more hypothetically) beat Roger in the final - and that was the highest seed he beat - would that somehow denigrate his accomplishment?

Such as this stat may be useful, if a player wins as the #1 seed, #2 should count as "1" for this purpose...right?

 

[Spencer Gore]

NADAL defeated
#1 seed -11 times
#2 seed -3 times
#3-5 seeds -5 times
#6-10 seeds -0 times
10+ seed -1 time

DJOKOVIC defeated
#1 seed -10 times
#2 seed -4 times
# 3-5 seeds -5 times
#6-10 seeds -1 time

FEDERER defeated
#1 seed -5 times
#2 seed -4 times
#3-5 seeds -5 times
#6-10 seeds -1 time

 

[Aabye5]

Doesn't work like that. Brady is from a team sport too.

What doesn't work like that? That the big 3 are that good? I think that's up for debate. Are you saying that a tennis player reaches 35 and all ability to play tennis ekes out of their fingertips?

 

[mike danny]

What doesn't work like that? That the big 3 are that good? I think that's up for debate. Are you saying that a tennis player reaches 35 and all ability to play tennis ekes out of their fingertips?

No, I'm saying that ahe affects them too and it's wrong to compare a team player with a tennis player.

 

[SonnyT]

To answer your question, it was Federer who, a month shy of turning 38 and 16 years after first winning Wimbledon, made the final in 2019 beating the #28, #20, #7, #2 ranked players (while Nole, in typical Wimbledon fashion, didn't face a single top-20 player), then had two match points against the game's top player.

That's one individual case, as opposed to working with whole samples!

 

[SonnyT]

NADAL defeated
#1 seed -11 times
#2 seed -3 times
#3-5 seeds -5 times
#6-10 seeds -0 times
10+ seed -1 time

8 of 11 times occurred at RG (4 each for Federer and Djokovic). As with everything else, Slam data for Nadal is very RG skewed.

So, Federer indeed took the road of least resistance to 20; Nadal the clay-paved road to 20; and Djokovic the hardest road to 20.

 

[SonnyT]

Up until '19 Wim, Djokovic faced stiff competition, usually had to beat either Federer or Nadal on way. But as both slowly but surely fade, his road gets easier. In his last 4 wins, he beat Nadal only (at RG) once, and didn't meet Federer at all. His titanic struggles with those two are maybe things of the past.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Up until '19 Wim, Djokovic faced stiff competition, usually had to beat either Federer or Nadal on way. But as both slowly but surely fade, his road gets easier. In his last 4 wins, he beat Nadal only (at RG) once, and didn't meet Federer at all. His titanic struggles with those two are maybe things of the past.

Yeah but it's about time he got a few "easier" draws after years of battling with likes of Nadal, Federer, Murray and Stan for his slams. He's had to hold off the nextgen too and so far has done a superb job.

 

[duaneeo]

And? The point is...?

The point is that this thread has no point.

 

[daphne]

The point is that this thread has no point.

Are you related to Tsitsipas?

 

[Aabye5]

8 of 11 times occurred at RG (4 each for Federer and Djokovic). As with everything else, Slam data for Nadal is very RG skewed.

So, Federer indeed took the road of least resistance to 20; Nadal the clay-paved road to 20; and Djokovic the hardest road to 20.

Nadal still played Fed and Nole at RG many times when he won it. Just like they played Rafa quite a few times at the AO and Wimbledon. Nobody says Nole has an easy draw when he plays Rafa on a hard court, so then it is also hard when Rafa plays Nole on clay.

Therefore playing the no. 1 ranked player (in the Big 3 era) is hard no matter what surface you are on.

 

[SonnyT]

The data for Nadal made it seem like it was hard, but much of it was constructed at RG clay, where nothing was hard for Nadal.

 

[mahesh69a]

The average number of seeded opponents faced and the average seed of these opponents are astonishingly close for all 3 in their 20 wins over such a long period.

	Federer			Nadal			Djokovic
Tournament	Number of Seeds faced	Seeds	Tournament	Number of Seeds faced	Seeds	Tournament	Number of Seeds faced	Seeds
W 2003	2	8+5	RG 2005	4	30+23+20+1	AO 2008	3	19+5+1
AO 2004	3	15+8+3	RG 2006	4	29+14+4+1	AO 2011	5	29+14+6+2+5
W 2004	3	7+10+2	RG 2007	4	14+23+6+1	W 2011	4	32+19+12+1
UO 2004	5	31+16+6+5+4	RG 2008	5	26+22+19+3+1	UO 2011	4	22+20+3+2
W 2005	5	25+23+21+3+2	W 2008	4	27+17+12+1	AO 2012	3	5+4+2
UO 2005	4	27+11+3+7	AO 2009	4	13+6+14+2	AO 2013	5	31+15+5+4+3
AO 2006	3	30+5+21	RG 2010	5	28+24+19+22+5	W 2014	4	14+26+11+4
W 2006	3	13+7+2	W 2010	4	33+6+4+12	AO 2015	4	31+8+4+6
UO 2006	3	5+7+9	UO 2010	4	23+8+12+3	W 2015	5	27+14+9+21+2
AO 2007	5	25+14+7+6+10	RG 2011	3	5+4+3	UO 2015	5	25+23+18+9+2
W 2007	5	26+13+20+12+2	RG 2012	4	13+12+6+1	AO 2016	5	28+14+7+3+2
UO 2007	3	5+4+3	RG 2013	5	27+13+9+1+4	RG 2016	4	14+7+13+2
UO 2008	4	28+23+3+6	UO 2013	4	22+19+8+1	W 2018	4	21+24+2+8
RG 2009	4	32+11+5+23	RG 2014	3	5+7+2	UO 2018	3	26+21+3
W 2009	5	27+13+22+24+6	RG 2017	4	17+20+6+3	AO 2019	5	25+15+8+28+2
AO 2010	5	31+22+6+10+5	UO 2017	2	24+28	W 2019	3	21+23+2
W 2012	4	29+26+1+4	RG 2018	4	27+11+5+7	AO 2020	4	14+32+3+5
AO 2017	4	10+5+4+9	RG 2019	4	27+7+3+4	AO 2021	4	27+14+6+4
W 2017	5	27+13+6+11+7	UO 2019	4	22+20+24+5	RG 2021	3	9+3+5
AO 2018	3	29+19+6	RG 2020	2	12+1	W 2021	3	17+10+7
	Average=78/20=3.9	Average=991/78=12.71		Average=77/20=3.85	Average=963/77=12.51		Average=80/20=4.0	Average=990/80=12.38

 

[Sunny014]

These sort of numbers only show the lack of depth in Tennis in the last 15 years.

If lower ranked players cannot win a slam/surprise the bigshots then it also shows that surfaces are homogenous and the same top ranked players easily remain more at the top than others.

So it is no surprise Djokodal (especially Djokovic) have remarkable numbers.

 

[Aabye5]

These sort of numbers only show the lack of depth in Tennis in the last 15 years.

If lower ranked players cannot win a slam/surprise the bigshots then it also shows that surfaces are homogenous and the same top ranked players easily remain more at the top than others.

So it is no surprise Djokodal (especially Djokovic) have remarkable numbers.

Eh...to demonstrate the lack of depth would be to point out that many of these players didn't repeat their success. For example, Tsonga reached one final. Not that long ago, even players who never won a Slam could reach multiple finals.

 

[canta_Brian]

This data doesn’t say what Djokovic fans think it does.

 

[Aabye5]

The data for Nadal made it seem like it was hard, but much of it was constructed at RG clay, where nothing was hard for Nadal.

So now he's being penalized for being too good on a surface

 

[aldeayeah]

Slams won without meeting a TOP 3:

Federer: 10
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 2



Seriously, Nadal is 2nd GOAT, why do people keep arguing Fed is

At least include the 4th seed, don't be so lewisian

 

[Dean Winchester]

Slams won without meeting a TOP 3:

Federer: 10
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 2



Seriously, Nadal is 2nd GOAT, why do people keep arguing Fed is

I think this is the correct figure

Federer - 11
Nadal - 6
Djokovic - 4