Big 3 win percentage after winning first slam

GrassMasters

GrassMasters

Rookie
People keep ****ting on Fred's percentages compared to the other two, but it's mostly due to the fact that up until he reached his prime, he wasn't very good.
For this thread, I consider that a player has reached his potential when he's won a slam. Everything before that was practice and figuring things out. And it that department, Fred had a LOT more figuring out than Djok and Raf.
From June 23 2003 (won Wimbledon) until the end of his career, Fred had a win/lose ratio of 1050-173 (86%).
Raf from May 23 2005 (won RG) until the end of his career, win/lose ratio of 994-193 (84%).
Djok from Jan 14 2008 (won AO) until current day, win/lose ratio of 1010-174 (85%).

So what happened? Let's look at every player's career prior to winning their maiden slam:
Fred 201-102 (66%)!!! That's from the start of his career until winning his first Wimbledon.
Raf 167-59 (74%). Start of career until first RG.
Djok 121-51 (70%). Start of career until first AO.

An interesting finding is it took Djok much less matches to win his first slam than Raf (172 vs 226). And they say baby Novak was ****e...
In conclusion, once finding their primes, Chokerer was the most consistent player percentage wise...

Discuss the stats/flame the cherry picked data.
 
Looks like Federer didn’t get ‘old’ after 2009 as many of his ‘fans’ claim to justify his sudden decline in winning Slams. He just had a hard time beating one other guy after that guy won his 2nd Slam.

What does this stat look like after each player won their second Slam?
 
socallefty said:
Looks like Federer didn’t get ‘old’ after 2009 as many of his ‘fans’ claim to justify his sudden decline in winning Slams. He just had a hard time beating one other guy after that guy won his 2nd Slam.

What does this stat look like after each player won their second Slam?
Click to expand...
Fed 1015-165 (86%) from AO 2004
Nadal 928-186 (83%) from RG 2006.
Djokovic 807-120 (87%) from AO 2011.
But Djokovic won his second slam when Federer was 29 so it makes sense.
 
GrassMasters said:
Discuss the stats/flame the cherry picked data.
Click to expand...
Well ok, since you asked for it.
GrassMasters said:
An interesting finding is it took Djok much less matches to win his first slam than Raf (172 vs 226).
Click to expand...
This stat is totally irrelevant tbh. All this really shows is that RAFA was playing in more tournaments at a younger age and going deeper in them than Joker was.

What you should be looking at is the number of schlems they participated in and how many matches in said schlems it took for them to win their maiden schlem.

For RAFA he won his first RG participating in his 6th schlem and it took him 21 matches (3-2 in 03), (3-2 in 04), (10- 1 at the end of RG 05).

And for Joker, he won his first AO after participating in his 13th schlem and it took him 52 matches (5-4 in 05), (9-4 in 06), (19-4 in 07), and (7-0 at the end of the AO in 08).
 
The Blond Blur said:
Well ok, since you asked for it.

This stat is totally irrelevant tbh. All this really shows is that RAFA was playing in more tournaments at a younger age and going deeper in them than Joker was.

What you should be looking at is the number of schlems they participated in and how many matches in said schlems it took for them to win their maiden schlem.

For RAFA he won his first RG participating in his 6th schlem and it took him 21 matches (3-2 in 03), (3-2 in 04), (10- 1 at the end of RG 05).

And for Joker, he won his first AO after participating in his 13th schlem and it took him 52 matches (5-4 in 05), (9-4 in 06), (19-4 in 07), and (7-0 at the end of the AO in 08).
Click to expand...
Slay, bestie!
;)
 
socallefty said:
Looks like Federer didn’t get ‘old’ after 2009 as many of his ‘fans’ claim to justify his sudden decline in winning Slams. He just had a hard time beating one other guy after that guy won his 2nd Slam.
Click to expand...
How do you draw this conclusion from OP’s stats? Fed never cracked 90% in any of his seasons after 2006 (except for 2017 where he skipped the entire clay season).
 
GrassMasters said:
People keep ****ting on Fred's percentages compared to the other two, but it's mostly due to the fact that up until he reached his prime, he wasn't very good.
For this thread, I consider that a player has reached his potential when he's won a slam. Everything before that was practice and figuring things out. And it that department, Fred had a LOT more figuring out than Djok and Raf.
From June 23 2003 (won Wimbledon) until the end of his career, Fred had a win/lose ratio of 1050-173 (86%).
Raf from May 23 2005 (won RG) until the end of his career, win/lose ratio of 994-193 (84%).
Djok from Jan 14 2008 (won AO) until current day, win/lose ratio of 1010-174 (85%).

So what happened? Let's look at every player's career prior to winning their maiden slam:
Fred 201-102 (66%)!!! That's from the start of his career until winning his first Wimbledon.
Raf 167-59 (74%). Start of career until first RG.
Djok 121-51 (70%). Start of career until first AO.

An interesting finding is it took Djok much less matches to win his first slam than Raf (172 vs 226). And they say baby Novak was ****e...
In conclusion, once finding their primes, Chokerer was the most consistent player percentage wise...

Discuss the stats/flame the cherry picked data.
Click to expand...
WHO CARES?
 
Seems like stats for stats' sake, producing reactions that have little to do with the stats presented. For a minute there, I thought I was on the wrong site.

Relieved.
 
socallefty said:
Looks like Federer didn’t get ‘old’ after 2009 as many of his ‘fans’ claim to justify his sudden decline in winning Slams. He just had a hard time beating one other guy after that guy won his 2nd Slam.
Click to expand...
We'll just ignore losing to Soderling, Berdych, and Tsonga. It was totally just one other guy. 30 year old Fred was peaking as hard as 25 year old Fred. Big Serb just two stron 4 him.
 
Federer's numbers in his prime are so impressive that he reminds me of the NBA GOAT center Wilton Norman Chamberlain and his inherently monstruous stats.

Just like Wilt's numbers are so surreal people tend to dismiss him talking about a supposed weaker era, some tend to do the same with Roger.

The old trick of "He's so good that we should ignore him".

Reality is Federer (and Wilt) would've been dominant in any era.
 
Last edited:
Third Serve said:
Going from a season like 2005 with an 81-4 win percentage to a season like 2011 with a 64-14 win percentage suggests Fed's decline in results was not necessarily due to one player.
Click to expand...
Seen this sort of superficial bs analysis for years. Fed was still great but obviously he had a decline. Just like Djokovic, except Djokovic had the worst group of young players we've ever seen which allowed him to hide it.
 
socallefty said:
Looks like Federer didn’t get ‘old’ after 2009 as many of his ‘fans’ claim to justify his sudden decline in winning Slams. He just had a hard time beating one other guy after that guy won his 2nd Slam.

What does this stat look like after each player won their second Slam?
Click to expand...

Federer had it easy as he had no consistent competition until Novak and Nadal showed up.
 
NatF said:
Nadal showed up in 2005 lol. That would be false even without that fact though (y)
Click to expand...
Yes but that was baby Nadal. It is known that Nadal didn't become a good player until 2008. If he had won the fifth set in the 2007 Wimbledon final, 2007 would have been prime Nadal too. But sadly he didn't.
 
NatF said:
If Fed had no competition until 2008 then Djokovic's has had no compensation since like 2013 lol.
Click to expand...
Yes but you see that's different. Everyone knows Medvedev > Hewitt, Zverev > Roddick, Tsitsipas > Safin, and so on and so forth.
 
mike danny said:
I do think Gonzo played a better AO F than Tsitsipas, but I'd probably get ravaged for making this take.
Click to expand...
Gonzo actually played a good AO final. He came close to winning the first set. If Fed put in a "merely" great performance and not an absolute vintage masterclass, that match would have gone four sets and he'd probably get a little more respect. Probably equal to or a little better than say Tsonga at AO 2008.

Tsitsipas isn't in that category. Even exhausted Safin at AO 2004 was better.
 
Federer had consistent competition from 03-05. It dropped off a bit in 06 when Hewitt, Roddick (who did climb back), Safin, and Agassi to varying extents fell away, as did the clay court specialists of Kuerten, Coria, and Gaudio; and Nadal was now blossoming as the major challenger to Federer's crown, creating the illusion afterwards that Federer never had competition pre-Nadal. He did, it's just that with those early 00s slam winners fading, Murray and Djokovic still germinating, and the now underlings like Davydenko and Blake being excellent players but not strong enough to drag down the god from his mountain, focus started to sharpen on the Federer vs Nadal battle.

And yeah, Gonzalez played a good final in 07.
 
jackson vile said:
Didn’t Federer retire around 2022?

You’re having a tough time with all of this aren’t you?

I’m not surprised :-D
Click to expand...
Fed counts in 2022? They hadnt even played for two years at that point. Scrapping the barrel but not surprising considering Djokovic's competition lately.
 
NatF said:
Fed counts in 2022? They hadnt even played for two years at that point. Scrapping the barrel but not surprising considering Djokovic's competition lately.
Click to expand...

Looks like Federer and Novak have a lot more in common than we previously believed, except Federer doesn’t own the records :-D
 
jackson vile said:
Looks like Federer and Novak have a lot more in common than we previously believed, except Federer doesn’t own the records :-D
Click to expand...
Even with the records plenty don't have Djokovic's as their GOAT :sneaky: And when they do it's always qualified with "if you look at the numbers".
 
NatF said:
Even with the records plenty don't have Djokovic's as their GOAT :sneaky: And when they do it's always qualified with "if you look at the numbers".
Click to expand...

Yes, because the statistics are what objectively define the GOAT.

The numbers are the literal qualification to be GOAT, who ever has the most is GOAT

It’s not feelings based Karen :-D
 
jackson vile said:
Yes, because the statistics are what objectively define the GOAT.

The numbers are the literal qualification to be GOAT, who ever has the most is GOAT

It’s not feelings based Karen :-D
Click to expand...
Numbers can't be objective in this scenario because they weren't achieved in the same field. All the greats have faced a different set of opponents to win their matches and tournaments against. It's not a scientific experiment where you hold everything else constant while testing for one variable. That's where you have to make qualitative judgments. Of course, we believe some judgments are more reasonable than others. For instance, we generally believe Sampras was a better player than Yannick Noah), but it's still technically subjective because you have to make one of these judgment calls to reach that conclusion:

1. You argue that they both faced similar levels of competition over their careers, which make their numbers fairly comparable. In this case, you simply compare the numbers and you go where the math leads you.

2. You argue that Sampras faced even stronger competition than Noah, which makes his statistical lead even more impressive.

3. You concede that Sampras faced weaker competition than Noah, but you argue that this gap in competition is not enough to account for Pete's massive statistical lead.

4. You posit that competition doesn't matter and subsequently take the numbers at face value. This is also a subjective judgment call, as much as many would like to deny it.

You could throw another variable into the mix: maybe one older player couldn't achieve as much because 80's players did not have the access to modern racket tech, training regimens, or sports medicine. So even if another, more modern player has a statistical edge, you could attribute that lead to external conditions that don't accurately reflect the quality of those players.

Either way, we're all making conscious choices about which things we value when determining who the GOAT is.
 
Last edited:
Jonesy said:
All i know is that those Saudi folks should buy a masters and make it a grass tournament in an artificial environment with all that money they have.
Click to expand...
tumblr_nztjg3FCeg1ujvfd5o2_540.gif
 
NatF said:
Seen this sort of superficial bs analysis for years. Fed was still great but obviously he had a decline. Just like Djokovic, except Djokovic had the worst group of young players we've ever seen which allowed him to hide it.
Click to expand...
Well... Djokovic with his insanely rigorous diet and habits was always gonna be extremely competitive into his later years.
If anything, the matches would've been more epic instead of Ruud/Berretini/Tsitsipas walkovers. But don't get it twisted. Djoker was destined to be a late career juggernaut.
 
BallisticMissileFonseca said:
Well... Djokovic with his insanely rigorous diet and habits was always gonna be extremely competitive into his later years.
If anything, the matches would've been more epic instead of Ruud/Berretini/Tsitsipas walkovers. But don't get it twisted. Djoker was destined to be a late career juggernaut.
Click to expand...
I think Djokovic was always going to have a great later career. What we tend to dispute is the claim that he's in a whole different tier compared to other late career titans like Fed, Rosewall, etc.
 
BallisticMissileFonseca said:
Well... Djokovic with his insanely rigorous diet and habits was always gonna be extremely competitive into his later years.
If anything, the matches would've been more epic instead of Ruud/Berretini/Tsitsipas walkovers. But don't get it twisted. Djoker was destined to be a late career juggernaut.
Click to expand...
For sure, but he's won at a higher rate in his 30's than 20's and the field is a huge part of that - along with the stuff you mentioned.
 
socallefty said:
Looks like Federer didn’t get ‘old’ after 2009 as many of his ‘fans’ claim to justify his sudden decline in winning Slams. He just had a hard time beating one other guy after that guy won his 2nd Slam.

What does this stat look like after each player won their second Slam?
Click to expand...

No it shows the exact opposite: Fed's lower winning percentages have more to do with him hitting his stride later in his career than the competition getting stronger.
Before Wimby 03 Fed was losing to the likes of Horna, Mirnyi, and Arazi in slams and I've never even heard people claim these players were stronger than the players Fed was consistently owning in his prime.

Now to be honest, this stat is also a little unfair to Djokovic because it took him another 3 years to win a slam after his first one.

At my calculation, here are the stats counting matches after and including each player's second slam win:

Djokovic 850 - 128 (86.9%)
Federer 1027 - 170 (85.8%)
Nadal 938 - 192 (83%)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Has anyone after winning the maiden slam, won the next one in which he appears?
Replies
20
Views
713
ibbi
ibbi
Docalex007
Until Federer goes a calendar year without winning a slam, shove it!
Replies
16
Views
1K
Safinator_1
Safinator_1
S
Nadal played first Grand Slam 49 days after Alcaraz birth
Replies
6
Views
153
Winner Sinner
Winner Sinner
M
Some achievements/Comments of Big 3 After 2019 Wimbledon
Replies
0
Views
272
McEnroeisanartist
M
Cindysphinx
Winning First Slam Final v. Losing First Slam Final
Replies
7
Views
796
crazylevity
crazylevity
Back
Top