Big Titles Won (Big 3 versus the field) the Last 15 years

[RaulRamirez]

Here's a stat of questionable value on this slow day, although it does illustrate just how dominant The Big 3
have been the last, well, 15 years. I may not be breaking news here, but sometimes - with all of the debates here - it's nice to sit back and appreciate just what Fed, Rafa and Novak have accomplished, individually and collectively.

Year-by-year stats are below, but some quick figures:

• The Big 3 have won 50 "slams" over the last 15 years: 50/60 = 83%
• The Big 3 have won 151 Big Titles out of 210 played = 72% - Big Titles (BTs) are the 14 (4 slams, plus 9 1000s, plus ATP Finals) played each year.
• During no year in the last 15 years, did "The Field" (everyone else on tour, including Murray, who has 18 Big Titles) win more Big Titles than The Big 3.
• And in no year, did The Field win more than half of the four slams; they won two apiece in ther best years, 2014 and 2016.
• ** Even in 2004, when it was just Fed, he won 7 Big Titles versus The Field's 7.
• ** I didn't count the Olympics (one more BT for Rafa, and Fed had won 3 BTs prior to 2004.)
• Sorry that I couldn't figure out how to copy this as a chart.

2004: Fed 7 ................................. The Field 7
2005: Fed 6, Rafa 5.................. The Field 3
2006: Fed 8, Rafa 3 ................. The Field 3
2007: Fed 6, Rafa 4, Novak 2, The Field 2
2008: Fed 1, Rafa 5, Novak 4, The Field 4
2009: Fed 4, Rafa 4, Novak 1, The Field 5
2010: Fed 3, Rafa 6, Novak 0, The Field 5

2011: Fed 2, Rafa 2, Novak 8, The Field 2
2012: Fed 4, Rafa 3, Novak 5, The Field 2
2013: Fed 0, Rafa 7, Novak 5, The Field 2
2014: Fed 2, Rafa 2, Novak 6, The Field 4
2015: Fed 1, Rafa 0, Novak 10, The Field 3
2016: Fed 0, Rafa 1, Novak 6, The Field 7
2017: Fed 5, Rafa 4, Novak 0, The Field 5
2018: Fed 1, Rafa 4, Novak 4, The Field 5

TOTALS - 2004-2018: FED 50, RAFA 50, NOVAK 51, (COLLECTIVELY 151); THE FIELD 59
(Total Big Titles for Career: Fed 53, Rafa 51 w/Olympics Gold, Novak 51)

 

[NoleFam]

Mind boggling when you think about it.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Year-by-year stats are below, but some quick figures:

• The Big 3 have won 50 "slams" over the last 15 years: 50/60 = 83%..

It's 51/60... 85%.

(20 + 17 +14)

 

[DSH]

Weak era!

 

[RaulRamirez]

It's 51/60... 85%.

(20 + 17 +14)

Actually, Fed took Wimbledon '03; I started these stats at the beginning of 2004, as that was when he started to dominate. Through 2003, Fed had only 3 combined Big Titles - 1 "slam", one ATP Finals and one 1000.
(For this purpose, 19+17 +14)

 

[RaulRamirez]

weak era!

Of course...

 

[Bobby Jr]

Actually, Fed took Wimbledon '03; I started these stats at the beginning of 2004, as that was when he started to dominate. Through 2003, Fed had only 3 combined Big Titles - 1 "slam", one ATP Finals and one 1000.

Noted. Realised so much after reading it a couple of times.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Mind boggling when you think about it.

Truly so. I didn't want to inspire anything but appreciation of all 3, but since the start of 2007, the Big Title count is...
Fed 29, Rafa 42 (43 with Olympic Gold), Novak 51. Oh, the Field has 46.
(Forgive any math errors; I'm doing old-fashioned addition, and late at night.)

 

[-NN-]

Here's a stat of questionable value on this slow day, although it does illustrate just how dominant The Big 3
have been the last, well, 15 years. I may not be breaking news here, but sometimes - with all of the debates here - it's nice to sit back and appreciate just what Fed, Rafa and Novak have accomplished, individually and collectively.

Year-by-year stats are below, but some quick figures:

• The Big 3 have won 50 "slams" over the last 15 years: 50/60 = 83%
• The Big 3 have won 151 Big Titles out of 210 played = 72% - Big Titles (BTs) are the 14 (4 slams, plus 9 1000s, plus ATP Finals) played each year.
• During no year in the last 15 years, did "The Field" (everyone else on tour, including Murray, who has 18 Big Titles) win more Big Titles than The Big 3.
• And in no year, did The Field win more than half of the four slams; they won two apiece in ther best years, 2014 and 2016.
• ** Even in 2004, when it was just Fed, he won 7 Big Titles versus The Field's 7.
• ** I didn't count the Olympics (one more BT for Rafa, and Fed had won 3 BTs prior to 2004.)
• Sorry that I couldn't figure out how to copy this as a chart.

2004:   Fed 7                     The Field 7
2005:   Fed 6, Rafa 5             The Field 3
2006:   Fed 8, Rafa 3             The Field 3
2007:   Fed 6, Rafa 4, Novak 2,   The Field 2
2008:   Fed 1, Rafa 5, Novak 4,   The Field 4
2009:   Fed 4, Rafa 4, Novak 1,   The Field 5
2010:   Fed 3, Rafa 6, Novak 0,   The Field 5

2011:   Fed 2, Rafa 2, Novak 8,   The Field 2
2012:   Fed 4, Rafa 3, Novak 5,   The Field 2
2013:   Fed 0, Rafa 7, Novak 5,   The Field 2
2014:   Fed 2, Rafa 2, Novak 6,   The Field 4
2015:   Fed 1, Rafa 0, Novak 10,  The Field 3
2016:   Fed 0, Rafa 1, Novak 6,   The Field 7
2017:   Fed 5, Rafa 4, Novak 0,   The Field 5
2018:   Fed 1, Rafa 4, Novak 4,   The Field 5

TOTALS: FED 50, RAFA 50, NOVAK 51, (COLLECTIVELY 151); THE FIELD 59

code test

 

[NoleFam]

Truly so. I didn't want to inspire anything but appreciation of all 3, but since the start of 2007, the Big Title count is...
Fed 29, Rafa 42 (43 with Olympic Gold), Novak 51. Oh, the Field has 46.
(Forgive any math errors; I'm doing old-fashioned addition, and late at night.)

I'm surprised the field even has 46 but then about 20 of those are Murray's so when you take those away, the field only has 26. It's crazy how dominant they have been in the last 10 -15 years.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Fedlvc

 

[RaulRamirez]

I'm surprised the field even has 46 but then about 20 of those are Murray's so when you take those away, the field only has 26. It's crazy how dominant they have been in the last 10 -15 years.

With Andy, add 18 to their Big Titles (again, not counting his 2 Olympics Gold for this) and subtract 18 from The Field.
But as great as Andy has been, his accomplishments just don't stack up with Big 3.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The big 3 have won 25% of all slams played in the open era. That is a ratio of one in four of every slam played since RG 1968

 

[RaulRamirez]

The big 3 have won 25% of all slams played in the open era. That is a ratio of one in four of every slam played since RG 1968

Pretty cool - and I'm guessing that percentage will rise over the next 5 years...5 collectively in that time?

I'll try one off the top of my head - just for slams: Since Novak (the youngest was born...can't ask them to win any before birth) in May, 1987 and if my math is correct, they've won 51 of 127 played, or 40%.....Holy Crap!!

 

[Fiero425]

Here's a stat of questionable value on this slow day, although it does illustrate just how dominant The Big 3
have been the last, well, 15 years. I may not be breaking news here, but sometimes - with all of the debates here - it's nice to sit back and appreciate just what Fed, Rafa and Novak have accomplished, individually and collectively.

Year-by-year stats are below, but some quick figures:

• The Big 3 have won 50 "slams" over the last 15 years: 50/60 = 83%
• The Big 3 have won 151 Big Titles out of 210 played = 72% - Big Titles (BTs) are the 14 (4 slams, plus 9 1000s, plus ATP Finals) played each year.
• During no year in the last 15 years, did "The Field" (everyone else on tour, including Murray, who has 18 Big Titles) win more Big Titles than The Big 3.
• And in no year, did The Field win more than half of the four slams; they won two apiece in ther best years, 2014 and 2016.
• ** Even in 2004, when it was just Fed, he won 7 Big Titles versus The Field's 7.
• ** I didn't count the Olympics (one more BT for Rafa, and Fed had won 3 BTs prior to 2004.)
• Sorry that I couldn't figure out how to copy this as a chart.

2004: Fed 7 ................................. The Field 7
2005: Fed 6, Rafa 5.................. The Field 3
2006: Fed 8, Rafa 3 ................. The Field 3
2007: Fed 6, Rafa 4, Novak 2, The Field 2
2008: Fed 1, Rafa 5, Novak 4, The Field 4
2009: Fed 4, Rafa 4, Novak 1, The Field 5
2010: Fed 3, Rafa 6, Novak 0, The Field 5

2011: Fed 2, Rafa 2, Novak 8, The Field 2
2012: Fed 4, Rafa 3, Novak 5, The Field 2
2013: Fed 0, Rafa 7, Novak 5, The Field 2
2014: Fed 2, Rafa 2, Novak 6, The Field 4
2015: Fed 1, Rafa 0, Novak 10, The Field 3
2016: Fed 0, Rafa 1, Novak 6, The Field 7
2017: Fed 5, Rafa 4, Novak 0, The Field 5
2018: Fed 1, Rafa 4, Novak 4, The Field 5

TOTALS - 2004-2018: FED 50, RAFA 50, NOVAK 51, (COLLECTIVELY 151); THE FIELD 59
(Total Big Titles for Career: Fed 53, Rafa 51 w/Olympics Gold, Novak 51)

Nole owned 2010's with 2015 the best season taking 10 of 14 BT's! Roger only came close to that kind of excellence making final after final!

 

[Lew II]

Including Murray the field won

2004: 7 big titles (8 with olympics)
2005: 3
2006: 3
2007: 2
2008: 2 (2 with olympics)
2009: 3
2010: 3
2011: 0
2012: 1 (1 with olympics)
2013: 0
2014: 4
2015: 1
2016: 2 (2 with olympics)
2017: 5
2018: 5

 

[Lew II]

Matches played against Big3:

Djokovic 100 out of 1.011 (9.89%)
Nadal 90 out of 1.107 (8.13%)
Federer 86 out of 1.440 (5.97%)

Matches played against Big4:

Djokovic 136 out of 1.011 (13.45%)
Nadal 115 out of 1.107 (10.39%)
Federer 111 out of 1.440 (7.71%)

Matches played against Big4 + Agassi/Sampras:

Djokovic 136 out of 1.011 (13.45%)
Nadal 117 out of 1.107 (10.57%)
Federer 123 out of 1.440 (8.54%)

 

[D.Nalby12]

Again shows Murray should never have been even mentioned along with these three.

 

[Fedforever]

Even in 2004, when it was just Fed, he won 7 Big Titles versus The Field's 7.

I miss going to every second tournament and winning it, leaving with the trophy.

Amazing to think there was a time when this was literally true.

https://www.si.com/tennis/2014/08/20/roger-federer-interview-us-open

 

[RaulRamirez]

Again shows Murray should never have been even mentioned along with these three.

I'm mixed on that, as Andy's overall record was also much better than anyone else on tour. Still, focusing on The Big 3 for this kind of stat is much more impressive (to me).

 

[Fedforever]

Delete

 

[mike danny]

Again shows Murray should never have been even mentioned along with these three.

He has Big 3 consistency, just not Big 3 excellence.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Another Big 3 stat:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075991873108484097

I don't like to reveal my true identity here, but yes, I posted that on Twitter right after posting it here. (I'd rather not be identified though.)

 

[mike danny]

Good stats, OP. The Big 3 are indeed overpowered.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Good stats, OP. The Big 3 are indeed overpowered.

Thanks, MD. Sometimes, it's cool just to take a step or so back and just admire the magnitude (tennis-wise, anyway) of what we've all been witnessing,

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

I don't like to reveal my true identity here, but yes, I posted that on Twitter right after posting it here. (I'd rather not be identified though.)

Well congratulations, you got yourselves caught. What’s the next step of your master plan?

 

[RaulRamirez]

Well congratulations, you got yourselves caught. What’s the next step of your master plan?

There's hardly a master plan here. I love discussing tennis, and at times, (not necessarily statistically) try to find new ways of looking at things. Another poster (titoel...) came up with the one stat, so then I tried to look at it another way, which was a reply here, and then became a tweet. So while I always use my own name elsewhere - FB, Twitter, other discussion forums - I like being "Raul" here.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

There's hardly a master plan here. Ilove discussing tennis, and at times, (not necessarily statistically on) try to find new ways of looking at things. Another poster (titoel...) came up with the one stat, so then I tried to look at it another way, which was a reply here, and then a tweet. So while I always use my own name elsewhere - FB, Twitter, other discussion forums - I like being "Raul" here.
here.

You’re a big guy.

 

[Fedforever]

I don't like to reveal my true identity here, but yes, I posted that on Twitter right after posting it here. (I'd rather not be identified though.)

I've deleted it for you.

 

[D.Nalby12]

He has Big 3 consistency, just not Big 3 excellence.

He had consistency of 5-6 Slams winner. Not in league of Fedovic. Nadal was never consistent outside of clay.

 

[mike danny]

He had consistency of 5-6 Slams winner. Not in league of Fedovic. Nadal was never consistent outside of clay.

He was in spurts.

Reached 3 straight Wimb finals from 2006 to 2008 and 5 Wimb finals in 6 years from 2006 to 2011.

Reached 3 straight non-clay slam finals from Wimb 2011 to AO 2012.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I've deleted it for you.

Thank you (and also good detective work!)

 

[RaulRamirez]

He had consistency of 5-6 Slams winner. Not in league of Fedovic. Nadal was never consistent outside of clay.

Of course, it's your prerogative to discuss any aspect of this, but I'd rather this thread not go there.
But while we're here, I think we can all respect what Rafa has achieved across all surfaces.
He made 5 straight Wimbledon finals (5 in 6 years, but he didn't enter the other year) has 3 US Opens and has made 8 HC "slam" finals, etc. So, he's an easy Hall of Famer not even counting his clay exploits, and the best-ever on clay.

 

[BGod]

If you're going to count Masters you have to include Murray with his 14 plus the WTF. Then it just becomes a riot.

But I myself prefer the stat-line that shows from 2005 French until now, a period of nearly 14 years and 55 Slams, only 2 one timers by the names Cilic and del Potro exist along with Spoiler Stan. Five men winning 96% of Slams.

This is like if we take Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander and McEnroe from 1984-1997 and only Pat Cash and Jim Courier win a lone Slam. Seriously that's the closest hypothetical scenario. Because Wilander fell off at just 24 because of a freak near miss catastrophe so he could have easily played well until 1994. Indeed he officially retired after 96, his last good run was in 1990. Lendl had back issues otherwise he probably continues to play well till 1994 as well. McEnroe did make deep runs in his later years just wasn't as consistent of a contender. His last big run was 1992 Wimbledon Semifinal at age 33, imagine he's more like Federer at least competing till 35 and you have him make it to 1994. Then we're left with Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. Becker actually won a Slam in 96 and his late resurgence is underrated but he did suffer persistent injuries, I guess you look at him as a Nadal but he didn't have the resources available at the time. Could easily contend until 98 otherwise. Edberg himself had issues and retired at 30 in 96, so extend his health and it's conceivable.

 

[Fedforever]

Thank you (and also good detective work!)

Never actually occurred to me that it was anything other than coincidence!!

 

[Sudacafan]

The best Trio in history after this one.

 

[Mainad]

I don't like to reveal my true identity here, but yes, I posted that on Twitter right after posting it here. (I'd rather not be identified though.)

Do we assume you are not Matthew J Goldberg then?

 

[Mainad]

Including Murray the field won


2016: 2 (2 with olympics)

Not sure I follow. The field including Murray won 6 big titles in 2016, 5 by Murray (1 Slam, 1 WTF, 3 Masters plus the Olympics) and 1 by Cilic (1 Masters).

 

[RaulRamirez]

Do we assume you are not Matthew J Goldberg then?

What is the purpose of your post?
A. I would never post an original idea of someone else and claim it as my own (a la on Twitter, or anywhere else) - not honorable. I'm not aware of everything, of course, but when I posted that particular stat, I had never seen or heard anything quite like that before.
B. I post in my own name everywhere that I can think of, except for here - not that I am ashamed of anything I post here (I have high standards) but because that is what everyone seems to do. (I have been the ghostwriter or name behind others on books, but that's a separate "thing".) Yes, my screen name here is an homage to one of my favorite players of the 70s - still my favorite doubles player.

 

[Mainad]

What is the purpose of your post?
A. I would never post an original idea of someone else and claim it as my own (a la on Twitter, or anywhere else) - not honorable. I'm not aware of everything, of course, but when I posted that particular stat, I had never seen or heard anything quite like that before.
B. I post in my own name everywhere that I can think of, except for here - not that I am ashamed of anything I post here (I have high standards) but because that is what everyone seems to do. (I have been the ghostwriter or name behind others on books, but that's a separate "thing".) Yes, my screen name here is an homage to one of my favorite players of the 70s - still my favorite doubles player.

I thought you meant that the twitter post you cited was the one you posted.

 

[Lew II]

Not sure I follow. The field including Murray won 6 big titles in 2016, 5 by Murray (1 Slam, 1 WTF, 3 Masters plus the Olympics) and 1 by Cilic (1 Masters).

I included Murray in the Big4.

In 2016 don't forget Wawrinka.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I thought you meant that the twitter post you cited was the one you posted.

a. I started this (appreciation) thread
b. Along the way, titoelcolombiano said:
The big 3 have won 25% of all slams played in the open era. That is a ratio of one in four of every slam played since RG 1968."
c. Pretty cool stat, to which I replied, "I'll try one off the top of my head (which I quickly researched) - just for slams: Since Novak (the youngest was born...can't ask them to win any before birth) in May, 1987 and if my math is correct, they've won 51 of 127 played, or 40%.....Holy Crap!!
d. This stat absolutely blew me away, so I posted it on Twitter.
e. I was surprised when @Fedforever, shortly after, found it on Twitter (I'm not well-known), and cited it here.
f. I acknowledged it was me, but didn't really want my real name posted here (It's an all-around page; if it were tennis-only, I probably wouldn't mind), and he graciously deleted that image.
g. (Enough about me, and even "Raul".)

 

[RaulRamirez]

I thought you meant that the twitter post you cited was the one you posted.

a. I started this (appreciation) thread
b. Along the way, titoelcolombiano said:
The big 3 have won 25% of all slams played in the open era. That is a ratio of one in four of every slam played since RG 1968."
c. Pretty cool stat, to which I replied, "I'll try one off the top of my head (which I quickly researched) - just for slams: Since Novak (the youngest was born...can't ask them to win any before birth) in May, 1987 and if my math is correct, they've won 51 of 127 played, or 40%.....Holy Crap!!
d. This stat absolutely blew me away, so I posted it on Twitter.
e. I was surprised when @Fedforever, shortly after, found it on Twitter (I'm not well-known), and cited it here.
f. I acknowledged it was me, but didn't really want my real name posted here (It's an all-around page; if it were tennis-only, I probably wouldn't mind), and he graciously deleted that image.
g. (Enough about me, and even "Raul".)

 

[Mark-Touch]

If anyone has time to burn on their hands perhaps a comparison throughout the various eras using the same type of stats?
I started looking at the Laver/Rosewall/Emerson era from 1955-1970 (chose a 15 year period to keep the time-frame the same)
and came up with 29/60 slams between the three or 48%. That's as far as I looked for their stats.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Flair, Macho, Hogan

 

[Raining hopes]

Flair, Macho, Hogan

Nole is more Ultimate Warrior than Macho

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nole is more Ultimate Warrior than Macho

Yes, quite corny and overrated

 

[Raining hopes]

Yes, quite corny and overrated

Err no, quite unstoppable and greater Kayfabe beast than even Hogan

 

[MichaelNadal]

Err no, quite unstoppable and greater Kayfabe beast than even Hogan

 

[Fedforever]

a. I started this (appreciation) thread
b. Along the way, titoelcolombiano said:
The big 3 have won 25% of all slams played in the open era. That is a ratio of one in four of every slam played since RG 1968."
c. Pretty cool stat, to which I replied, "I'll try one off the top of my head (which I quickly researched) - just for slams: Since Novak (the youngest was born...can't ask them to win any before birth) in May, 1987 and if my math is correct, they've won 51 of 127 played, or 40%.....Holy Crap!!
d. This stat absolutely blew me away, so I posted it on Twitter.
e. I was surprised when @Fedforever, shortly after, found it on Twitter (I'm not well-known), and cited it here.
f. I acknowledged it was me, but didn't really want my real name posted here (It's an all-around page; if it were tennis-only, I probably wouldn't mind), and he graciously deleted that image.
g. (Enough about me, and even "Raul".)

Just one thing - I'd actually skipped through the thread the first time and so hadn't seen the second post with the 40% stat. Otherwise even I might have realised the Tweet was a bit of a coincidence! It just looked like someone was having similar thoughts to you.

The perils of dashing through threads too quickly.