Big 3 slam distribution by surface .... v11.0

beard

beard

Legend
Lets imagine there is only 3 GS, not 4.... one hard, one clay and one grass...
I made some calculations what happens... big 3 distribution:
If its not obvious I divided no of slams on hard by 2...

Nadal: Clay 12 (75%), Grass 2 (12.5%), Hard 2 (12.5%) .... Best surface/Worst surface 6
Federer: Clay 1 (7%), Grass 8 (55%), Hard 5.5 (38%) ... Best surface/Worst surface 7.9
Novak: Clay 1 (10%), Grass 4 (40%), Hard 5 (50%) ... Best surface/Worst surface 5

Seems that Fed distribution is not that great ... Nadal has more clay slams than Fed has grass slams, but have more success on his worst surfaces - hard and grass, than Federer have on his worst surface - clay... Off course we must notice that 75>55% so Federer distribution is better
Best distribution... of course Novak... Best surface/Worst surface "only" 5... Best surface only 50% of slams

Here is graph too to visualize results...
https://imgur.com/0BSowDm

Edit: made mistake for Nadal. Now it should be good....
 
Last edited:
E

EasyGoing

Professional
beard said:
Lets imagine there is only 3 GS, not 4.... one hard, one clay and one grass...
I made some calculations what happens... big 3 distribution:
If its not obvious I divided no of slams on hard by 2...

Nadal: Clay 12 (75%), Grass 2 (12.5%), Hard 2 (12.5%) .... Best surface/Worst surface 6
Federer: Clay 1 (7%), Grass 8 (55%), Hard 5.5 (38%) ... Best surface/Worst surface 7.9
Novak: Clay 1 (10%), Grass 4 (40%), Hard 5 (50%) ... Best surface/Worst surface 5

Seems that Fed distribution is not that great ... Nadal has more clay slams than Fed has grass slams, but have more success on his worst surfaces - hard and grass, than Federer have on his worst surface - clay... Off course we must notice that 75>55% so Federer distribution is better
Best distribution... of course Novak... Best surface/Worst surface "only" 5... Best surface only 50% of slams

Here is graph too to visualize results...
https://imgur.com/0BSowDm

Edit: made mistake for Nadal. Now it should be good....
Click to expand...


Lol - this is like so sad... Like your first day office trainee got drunk and worked in excel by himself for the very first time...
 
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
beard said:
Nadal: Clay 12 (75%), Grass 2 (12.5%), Hard 2 (12.5%)
Federer: Clay 1 (7%), Grass 8 (55%), Hard 5.5 (38%)
Novak: Clay 1 (10%), Grass 4 (40%), Hard 5 (50%)
Click to expand...
Yet, Nadal still has the best distribution in your sample. Federer and Djokovic only have won 7-10% of their Majors on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Slams won on any surface, as he has won 12.5% of his Majors on hard/grass. You are just penalizing Nadal for being more dominant on clay than Federer on grass and Djokovic on hard, not for having a worse distribution.

Following your logic, Sampras has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. Sampras has won 50% of his Majors on grass and 0% of his Majors on clay. Nadal has won 66% of his Majors on clay and 11% of his Majors on grass.

50-0= 50 points of difference.
66-11= 55 points of difference.

As there is more difference between Nadal's best surface and Nadal's worst surface than between Sampras' best surface and Sampras' worst surface, Sampras would have his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. But that makes no sense, as Nadal has won Slams on all surfaces and Sampras never won a Slam on clay. You would be penalizing Nadal for being more dominant on clay than Sampras on grass, not for having his Majors less distributed by surface.

To determine who has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface you need to look only at the worst surface. He who has was a highest % of Slams won in his worst surface, is the one with the Slams more evenly distibruted by surface.
 
Last edited:
beard

beard

Legend
Sport said:
Yet, Nadal still has the best distribution. Federer and Djokovic only have won 10% of their Majors on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Slams won on any surface, as he has won 12.5% of his Majors on hard/grass.
Click to expand...
Sorry Sport but 75/55/50 difference is greater than 12.5/10/7...
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
This surface distribution nonsense keeps being bandied around ad infinitum. In the real world, here are the facts:

Number of slams won outside best slam:
Federer - 12
Djokovic - 8
Nadal - 6

Number of slams won at worst slam:
Nadal/Djokovic/Federer - 1

Federer very clearly the best outside of his best slam. Also has highest percentage of slams won outside of best slam (60%). He literally leads the slam race on 2 of the 3 surfaces, with outright open era record in one slam, joint record in one and 2nd in the open era in another.

Nadal has the most on his worst surface (2) but only has 1 win at his worst slam.

Now for the opinion: surface distribution percentage isn't all that important. If Federer wins 6 more Wimbledon titles, it wouldn't change the fact that he's better than anyone else out of their respective best slam. Same goes for Nadal at RG. Winning more RG titles doesn't change the fact that Nadal has an ATG career purely outside of his best slam.
 
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
beard said:
Sorry Sport but 75/55/50 difference is greater than 12.5/10/7...
Click to expand...
Nadal still has the best distribution in your sample. Federer and Djokovic only have won 7-10% of their Majors on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Slams won on any surface, as he has won 12.5% of his Majors on hard/grass. You are just penalizing Nadal for being more dominant on clay than Federer on grass and Djokovic on hard, not for having a worse distribution.

Following your logic, Sampras has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. Sampras has won 50% of his Majors on grass and 0% of his Majors on clay. Nadal has won 66% of his Majors on clay and 11% of his Majors on grass.

50-0= 50 points of difference.
66-11= 55 points of difference.

As there is more difference between Nadal's best surface and Nadal's worst surface than between Sampras' best surface and Sampras' worst surface, Sampras would have his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. But that makes no sense, as Nadal has won Slams on all surfaces and Sampras never won a Slam on clay. You would be penalizing Nadal for being more dominant on clay than Sampras on grass, not for having his Majors less distributed by surface.

To determine who has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface you need to look only at the worst surface. He who has was a highest % of Slams won in his worst surface, is the one with the Slams more evenly distibruted by surface.
 
beard

beard

Legend
Towny said:
This surface distribution nonsense keeps being bandied around ad infinitum. In the real world, here are the facts:

Number of slams won outside best slam:
Federer - 12
Djokovic - 8
Nadal - 6

Number of slams won at worst slam:
Nadal/Djokovic/Federer - 1

Federer very clearly the best outside of his best slam. Also has highest percentage of slams won outside of best slam (60%). He literally leads the slam race on 2 of the 3 surfaces, with outright open era record in one slam, joint record in one and 2nd in the open era in another.

Nadal has the most on his worst surface (2) but only has 1 win at his worst slam.

Now for the opinion: surface distribution percentage isn't all that important. If Federer wins 6 more Wimbledon titles, it wouldn't change the fact that he's better than anyone else out of their respective best slam. Same goes for Nadal at RG. Winning more RG titles doesn't change the fact that Nadal has an ATG career purely outside of his best slam.
Click to expand...

Towny, we are talking about slam distribution, not absolute numbers...
1/1/1 is better distribution than 2/5/10... if my usage of English word distribution is appropriate, I can be wrong thought
 
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Towny said:
This surface distribution nonsense keeps being bandied around ad infinitum. In the real world, here are the facts:

Number of slams won outside best slam:
Federer - 12
Djokovic - 8
Nadal - 6

Number of slams won at worst slam:
Nadal/Djokovic/Federer - 1

Federer very clearly the best outside of his best slam. Also has highest percentage of slams won outside of best slam (60%). He literally leads the slam race on 2 of the 3 surfaces, with outright open era record in one slam, joint record in one and 2nd in the open era in another.

Nadal has the most on his worst surface (2) but only has 1 win at his worst slam.

Now for the opinion: surface distribution percentage isn't all that important. If Federer wins 6 more Wimbledon titles, it wouldn't change the fact that he's better than anyone else out of their respective best slam. Same goes for Nadal at RG. Winning more RG titles doesn't change the fact that Nadal has an ATG career purely outside of his best slam.
Click to expand...
Excellent comment Towny. You make a clear separation betwen Slams distribution by event and Slams distribution by surface.

While I personally believe that Slams distribution by surface is also relevant, your comment is still very well-reasoned. Importantly, your comment makes logic unlike the one of @beard. Following @beard's logic, Sampras has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal, even when Sampras won 0 Majors on clay and Nadal won Slams on all surfaces.
 
beard

beard

Legend
Sport said:
Nadal still has the best distribution in your sample. Federer and Djokovic only have won 7-10% of their Majors on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage of Slams won on any surface, as he has won 12.5% of his Majors on hard/grass. You are just penalizing Nadal for being more dominant on clay than Federer on grass and Djokovic on hard, not for having a worse distribution.

Following your logic, Sampras has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. Sampras has won 50% of his Majors on grass and 0% of his Majors on clay. Nadal has won 66% of his Majors on clay and 11% of his Majors on grass.

50-0= 50 points of difference.
66-11= 55 points of difference.

As there is more difference between Nadal's best surface and Nadal's worst surface than between Sampras' best surface and Sampras' worst surface, Sampras would have his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. But that makes no sense, as Nadal has won Slams on all surfaces and Sampras never won a Slam on clay. You would be penalizing Nadal for being more dominant on clay than Sampras on grass, not for having his Majors less distributed by surface.

To determine who has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface you need to look only at the worst surface. He who has was a highest % of Slams won in his worst surface, is the one with the Slams more evenly distibruted by surface.
Click to expand...
In my OP I wouldn't use for Sampras 50-0, but 50/0, so his distribution is bad...
 
S

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
I wonder if some people really believe that Nadal's slam record would look better if he had like 3 RG titles instead of 12. :unsure:
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?

We get it, Rafa dominates on clay, to a lesser extent Fed dominates on grass, and Djoker to a lesser extent dominates on hard.

There are 3 surfaces for a reason, they all matter and give us different results. You can throw stats and opinions anyway you so choose, but at the end of the day, distribution by surface is ridiculous to even talk about until they all have the same amount of slam.

Now if this happens (Rafa might), then this thread is viable for conversation...
 
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
beard said:
In my OP I wouldn't use for Sampras 50-0, but 50/0, so his distribution is bad...
Click to expand...
The whole point of your original post is the following: the player with less difference between his best surface and his worst surface is the one who has his Slams better distributed by surface.

My example from Sampras refutes your premise, as there is less difference between Sampras' best and worst surface than between Nadal's best and worst surface. And Nadal has won Majors on all surfaces, unlike Sampras.

To determine which player has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface, you need to check who has a higher % percentage of Slams won on his worst surface. And that is Nadal.
 
Last edited:
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
beard said:
Towny, we are talking about slam distribution, not absolute numbers...
1/1/1 is better distribution than 2/5/10... if my usage of English word distribution is appropriate, I can be wrong thought
Click to expand...
My point is not that your numbers are wrong. I'm only questioning the utility of slam distribution. What is the value of it? I see its value chiefly in that it gives context to absolute numbers. So if someone wins 10 slams, we can see where those wins came from. Even qualifying that is subjective, as one may value higher numbers at a single slam (say 7-1-1-1) while another may value a very even distribution (say 3-3-2-2).

Devoid of absolute numbers, the stats mean very little, as your numbers show. 1-1-1 is a better distribution than 2-5-10 but is patently worse in every respect. That's why I gave absolute numbers
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
Sport said:
The whole point of your original post is the following: the player with less difference between his best surface and his worst surface is the one who has his Slams better distributed by surface.

My example from Sampras refutes your premise, as there is less difference between Sampras' best and worst Slam than between Nadal's best and worst Slam. And Nadal has won Majors on all surfaces, unlike Sampras.

To determine which player has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface, you need to check who has a higher % percentage of Slams won on his worst surface. And that is Nadal.
Click to expand...

Well it can't be looked at as 1 surface=1 surface. Big 3 have 1 chance per year to win a slam on clay. Rafa has two on hard. Tennis is made up of 50% on hard, 25% on grass and another 25 on clay.

This needs to be accounted for. Which is why distribution of slams is better than distribution of surface.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
Sport said:
Excellent comment Towny. You make a clear separation betwen Slams distribution by event and Slams distribution by surface.

While I personally believe that Slams distribution by surface is also relevant, your comment is still very well-reasoned. Importantly, your comment makes logic unlike the one of @beard. Following @beard's logic, Sampras has his Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal, even when Sampras won 0 Majors on clay and Nadal won Slams on all surfaces.
Click to expand...
As I said in my post, what matters more to me is absolute numbers of slams won outside of slams, rather than percentage distribution. Nadal won 6 slams outside of RG, only 1 less than Sampras' 7 outside Wimbledon. But at their worst slam, Nadal won 1 title, Sampras won 0. And on their worst surface, Nadal won 2 titles (joint best in Open Era), while Sampras won 0. The fact that only 50% of Sampras' titles came at Wimbledon as opposed to 66.7% of Nadal's coming at RG isn't really important to me. It might have been were they both on 18 slams, but that isn't the case.

As to who has the better distribution, it will depend on personal preference. Sampras had dominant numbers at 2 slams, Nadal has only really dominated RG. But Nadal won at every slam, whereas Sampras never even made a final at RG. I personally value the career slam a lot so Nadal having it is a big deal for me.
 
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Lleytonstation said:
Well it can't be looked at as 1 surface=1 surface. Big 3 have 1 chance per year to win a slam on clay. Rafa has two on hard. Tennis is made up of 50% on hard, 25% on grass and another 25 on clay.

This needs to be accounted for. Which is why distribution of slams is better than distribution of surface.
Click to expand...
Nadal has won 4 Grand Slams on hard, Federer/Djokovic 1 Grand Slam on clay. Such a giant difference (4 >1) cannot be justified with the fact that there are 2 Slams on hard. Even if we divide 4 ÷ 2 = 2. Nadal averages 2 titles per Grand Slam on hard, while Federer/Djokovic average 1 title per Grand Slam on clay.

We can also calculate 3 surfaces, if we divide the number of Majors on hard by 2. And, as @beard has done, if we divide number of Majors on hard by 2, Nadal has won 13% of his Majors on hard, Djokovic 10% of his Majors on clay and Federer 7% of his Majors on clay. So even considering 3 surfaces, Nadal is the player with a higher percentage of Slams won in his worst surface. Which means he is the player with a better distribution of Slams by surface.

Both are equally worth of discussion in my view: (1) Grand Slam distribution by event and (2) Grand Slam distribution by surface.
 
Last edited:
beard

beard

Legend
Towny said:
My point is not that your numbers are wrong. I'm only questioning the utility of slam distribution. What is the value of it? I see its value chiefly in that it gives context to absolute numbers. So if someone wins 10 slams, we can see where those wins came from. Even qualifying that is subjective, as one may value higher numbers at a single slam (say 7-1-1-1) while another may value a very even distribution (say 3-3-2-2).

Devoid of absolute numbers, the stats mean very little, as your numbers show. 1-1-1 is a better distribution than 2-5-10 but is patently worse in every respect. That's why I gave absolute numbers
Click to expand...
Everything you wrote stands, but that is not point of the topic, which is distribution.
For some posters distrubution is not that important (Nadal fans mostly ;), guess why) and for other it is very important (mostly Fed fans who feel that Feds record is in danger so find excuse in Nadal slam distribution :-D). I just wanted to give my 5 cents about distribution topic.
For me distribution is not crucial, but is very important, and can be nice tie breaker in case of same no of slams.
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
Sport said:
Nadal has won 4 Grand Slams on hard, Federer/Djokovic 1 Grand Slam on clay. Such a gaint difference (4 >1) cannot be justified with the fact that there are 2 Slams on hard. Even if we divide 4 ÷ 2 = 2. Nadal averages 2 titles per Grand Slam on hard, while Federer/Djokovic average 1 title per Grand Slam on clay.
Click to expand...

The way averages with deviation works has nothing to do with the worst and best. It has to deal with all the data. That means Rafa's 66% on clay, 22% on hard, and 11% on grass. Now, when you take those stats and compare it to the other big 3, you will see that their averages with correct deviation of all data shows that Fed is closer based on what it "should" look like compared to the 25/25/50 ratio.

Fed has 5% on clay, 40% on grass, and 55% on hard. This means that statistically Fed has a more accurate distribution to what it should be.

But until they all have the same number of slams, it is irrelevant.
 
Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Federer on his best surfaces (hard/grass) is 4-11 against Djokovic and Nadal since 2008.

12 years of decline and he is still there proclaiming to be playing his best tennis ever.
 
CiscoPC600

CiscoPC600

Hall of Fame
I would like a similar post showing runnerups. I still think it's valuable in seeing how good each was on other surfaces.
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
CiscoPC600 said:
I would like a similar post showing runnerups. I still think it's valuable in seeing how good each was on other surfaces.
Click to expand...
Don't you know...
tenor.gif
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
CiscoPC600 said:
I had a feeling that GIF would be posted. Haha. I mean, you can't say reaching the final has zero weight. Especially if done multiple times, it demonstrates the ability to excel at that surface/slam.
Click to expand...
No I know, but like you said, it had to be done. To be honest as a Fed fan I would love to bring up all the QF and SF and e ven the F he has reached. However, everyone will just say he lost in the end.
 
Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Try looking at the number of finals, you will see that they're all very complete. They all have at least 4 finals in each slam.

Federer:

AO - 7
RG - 5
WI - 11
UO - 7

Nadal:

AO - 5
RG - 12
WI - 5
UO - 4

Djokovic:

AO - 7
RG - 4
WI - 5
UO - 8
 
CiscoPC600

CiscoPC600

Hall of Fame
QF and SF are not the same as the final. I would weigh the finals. At least for a complete analysis of the true GOAT.
 
E

EasyGoing

Professional
Let’s do the SF’s as well.

Federer:

AO - 14
RG - 8
WI - 12
UO - 10
Total: 44

Nadal:

AO - 6
RG - 12
WI - 6
UO - 7
Total: 31

Djokovic:

AO - 7
RG - 9
WI - 8
UO - 11
Total: 35

And as a bonus the WTF SF:
Federer - 15
Nadal - 5
Djokovic - 8

They are all complete, but some are just more complete than others.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
tennisaddict said:
Obvious you failed in your statistics class
Click to expand...
beard said:
Can you please explain what is wrong with my excel and statistics?
It was just quick effort to make some calculations... I am open for criticism but explain please...
Click to expand...

See if this helps.

Standard deviation in statistics, typically denoted by σ, is a measure of variation or dispersion (refers to a distribution's extent of stretching or squeezing) between values in a set of data. The lower the standard deviation, the closer the data points tend to be to the mean (or expected value), μ. Conversely, a higher standard deviation indicates a wider range of values.

Plug in the values here and see what you find
https://www.calculator.net/standard-deviation-calculator.html

Fed / Rafa / Novak (Actuals at all majors):

6,1,8,5 - 2.54
1,12,2,3 - 4.38
7,1,4,3 - 2.16

Fed / Rafa / Novak (Your merge of HC slams) :
1,8, 5.5 - 2.89
12,2,2 - 4.71
1,4,5 -1.69
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
tennisaddict said:
See if this helps.

Standard deviation in statistics, typically denoted by σ, is a measure of variation or dispersion (refers to a distribution's extent of stretching or squeezing) between values in a set of data. The lower the standard deviation, the closer the data points tend to be to the mean (or expected value), μ. Conversely, a higher standard deviation indicates a wider range of values.

Plug in the values here and see what you find
https://www.calculator.net/standard-deviation-calculator.html

Fed / Rafa / Novak (Actuals at all majors):

6,1,8,5 - 2.54
1,12,2,3 - 4.38
7,1,4,3 - 2.16

Fed / Rafa / Novak (Your merge of HC slams) :
1,8, 5.5 - 2.89
12,2,2 - 4.71
1,4,5 -1.69
Click to expand...
As I posted earlier, you can do it with percentages as well, and you get the same thing. People think it is the worst vs the best surface numbers, but deviation is the results of an entire set of data.
 
titoelcolombiano

titoelcolombiano

Legend
Can we please have Lavers surface distribution? McEnroe? Connors? Oh that's right surface distribution has never been relevant historically. It's only become relevant since Nadal's slam count needed to be discredited somehow.
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
titoelcolombiano said:
Can we please have Lavers surface distribution? McEnroe? Connors? Oh that's right surface distribution has never been relevant historically. It's only become relevant since Nadal's slam count needed to be discredited somehow.
Click to expand...
I will say this, and it is hard to say it to be honest, but, you have a point. Rafa should not be discredited for winning basically everything on clay all the time. There is 1 slam on clay, he took full advantage of it. If Fed had 12 Wimbledon's I would probably say the same thing.

However, it is the same way Fed fans feel when Rafa fans bring up h2h (which Rafa would gladly flip his h2h record for one more slam). It does not matter until they get closer and slams and people look for ways to say Rafa is better.

On both accounts, the whole point of this is to win tourneys, specifically slams, and having a lopsided slam record on surfaces or having a bad h2h vs another player should not matter when we tally up total slams. But this is the nature of things, once these two players get closer and closer, people will start to compare resumes such as h2h, masters, weeks at number one, WTF, and a whole lot of other stuff.
 
beard

beard

Legend
tennisaddict said:
See if this helps.

Standard deviation in statistics, typically denoted by σ, is a measure of variation or dispersion (refers to a distribution's extent of stretching or squeezing) between values in a set of data. The lower the standard deviation, the closer the data points tend to be to the mean (or expected value), μ. Conversely, a higher standard deviation indicates a wider range of values.

Plug in the values here and see what you find
https://www.calculator.net/standard-deviation-calculator.html

Fed / Rafa / Novak (Actuals at all majors):

6,1,8,5 - 2.54
1,12,2,3 - 4.38
7,1,4,3 - 2.16

Fed / Rafa / Novak (Your merge of HC slams) :
1,8, 5.5 - 2.89
12,2,2 - 4.71
1,4,5 -1.69
Click to expand...
Thanks, appreciate your effort... I used sd so I am familiar with...

As I said opening post was just another approach to the matter...

And my conclusions were practically the same as your calculations showed... so there was no reason for such criticism.... Novak slam distribution is best, followed with Fed's and Rafa's...
 
beard

beard

Legend
Grampa said:
OP is a Djokovic fan who loathes Fed and his fans. This thread actually denigrates Djokovic’s ATG status too but as it tries harming Fed’s achievements it is good enough for the OP. These guys hate Fed more than they like their own player.
Click to expand...
What to say... Its easy to hate Fed ;)

But, I gave some numbers which suggested that Novak has best slam distribution, followed with Federer and Nadal....

Can you say something about topic, give some arguments in favor of your God? You know, be usefull in conversation....
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
beard said:
What to say... Its easy to hate Fed ;)

But, I gave some numbers which suggested that Novak has best slam distribution, followed with Federer and Nadal....

Can you say something about topic, give some arguments in favor of your God? You know, be usefull in conversation....
Click to expand...
Well, I think your stats show the argument is case closed for Fed as of now. Very close second surface and slam distribution, with Rafa being last in both. Since currently Fed has 5 more slams then djoker, it's obvious Fed wins there.

Now if Rafa wins 2 more RG, these stats will look even worse for Rafa. This is why at the end of the day, it is slightly useful, but not "very" important as you said.

But once again, since we do not know what Rafa will and will not win, these numbers won't be useful till they have the same number of slams.

giphy.gif
 
beard

beard

Legend
Lleytonstation said:
Well, I think your stats show the argument is case closed for Fed as of now. Very close second surface and slam distribution, with Rafa being last in both. Since currently Fed has 5 more slams then djoker, it's obvious Fed wins there.

Now if Rafa wins 2 more RG, these stats will look even worse for Rafa. This is why at the end of the day, it is slightly useful, but not "very" important as you said.

But once again, since we do not know what Rafa will and will not win, these numbers won't be useful till they have the same number of slams.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Obviously Federer is better now, we will see how slam race will finish... but that is not topic here ;)
For the rest of your post I think I agree..
Please dont post that gif anymore... You made me :sick:
 
Grampa

Grampa

Semi-Pro
beard said:
What to say... Its easy to hate Fed ;)

But, I gave some numbers which suggested that Novak has best slam distribution, followed with Federer and Nadal....

Can you say something about topic, give some arguments in favor of your God? You know, be usefull in conversation....
Click to expand...
You like your cronies posts and crap on Fed, rarely ever posting stats which already haven't been regurgitated before (tbh that's 75% of this forum). @Towny anyways kicks ass with his logical posts so others need not post much ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

granddog29
Comparing Federer and Nadal by surface
Replies
7
Views
1K
mike danny
mike danny
Grunge123
Best and Worst Surface of each of the top 10
Replies
17
Views
2K
*Sparkle*
S
Flint
Slam distribution with Nadal/Djokovic
Replies
16
Views
906
3lite
3lite
The_Order
The logical way to compare the greatest players at the slams
Replies
4
Views
336
junior74
junior74
S
Titles By Surface
Replies
6
Views
1K
coloskier
C
Top