Big3's greatest Slam SF+F performances

[Lew II]

Federer was ranked #17 at the AO 2017, while Raonic was #3. Nadal destroyed Raonic and lost to Federer, proving ranking is not always correlated with form.

I din't say it's perfect.

 

[RS]

SF+F games won percentage minus opponents' geometric mean average ranking (excluding themselves from the ranking):

(example: 2019 AO Djokovic won 75.0% of games against opponents ranked 5.5 on average --> 75.0 - 5.5 = 69.3)

2019 AO Djokovic 69.5
2017 RG Nadal 69.3
2008 RG Nadal 67.8
2019 RG Nadal 63.7
2004 UO Federer 63.4
2018 RG Nadal 63.3
2013 AO Djokovic 62.8
2020 RG Nadal 62.5
2016 RG Djokovic 62.4
2015 UO Djokovic 62.3
2016 AO Djokovic 61.7
2006 WI Federer 61.2
2014 RG Nadal 60.9
2012 RG Nadal 60.7
2008 UO Federer / 2010 AO Federer 59.1
2011 UO Djokovic 58.8
2007 RG Nadal / 2013 UO Nadal 58.1
2013 RG Nadal 58.0
2011 AO Djokovic 57.9
2007 AO Federer 57.4
2005 WI Federer 57.3
2006 UO Federer 56.9
2007 UO Federer / 2010 UO Nadal 56.1
2018 UO Djokovic 55.9
2011 RG Nadal 54.9
2012 WI Federer 54.7
2012 AO Djokovic 54.6
2005 RG Nadal / 2006 RG Nadal 54.3
2011 WI Djokovic 53.9
2015 AO Djokovic 53.1
2004 WI Federer 52.7
2010 WI Nadal 52.5
2015 WI Djokovic / 2017 WI Federer 51.6
2020 AO Djokovic 51.4
2005 UO Federer 51.1
2010 RG Nadal / 2018 WI Djokovic 50.7
2007 WI Federer 49.5
2008 AO Djokovic 49.3
2009 AO Nadal 48.2
2008 WI Nadal 47.7
2018 AO Federer 47.5
2004 AO Federer 47.2
2017 AO Federer 46.7
2019 UO Nadal 46.3
2019 WI Djokovic 45.0
2009 RG Federer 44.9
2014 WI Djokovic 44.5
2003 WI Federer 42.8
2009 WI Federer 38.1
2017 UO Nadal 36.7
2006 AO Federer 28.7

Can you do this for runner ups?

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Scoreline is misleading as well.

Federer beat a 9/10 Roddick in USO 07 would would have anybody else in draw with 42 winners to 24 errors and Federer shut him in straights.

I don’t think Roddick was a 9/10 in any match vs Federer.

That is very very high but he is sure underrated by some many here.

 

[aman92]

This does not really measure peak performance.. All it achieves to say is that one of the players was at his best while the othet higher ranked player probably played under par. For eg.. Nadal of FO 2012 beat a Djokovic who had won the past 3 slams in 4 sets. I'll rank that higher than destroying a sub par Wawrinka in straights in 2017

 

[aditya123]

^^
@aditya123 @Sunny Ali
my previous post in this thread.

This is a failed thread.... What would the next criteria be??? This guy here and Manjrekar in commentary r analysis are like kab tera muh bandh karega

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

@Lew II

Add the average daytime temperature and max wind gust speeds during F+SFs to the mix to show who had to win under harder conditions. Also add age to that number with an arbitrary multiplicative factor for Novak as he survived bombings.

Then it'll truly be a meaningful number.

 

[mike danny]

.... no answer. What a shock.

In 2020, Theim was ranked #3 at year end. In 2005, Hewit was ranked #5. Obviously, Theim > Hewitt.

or something.


I don't have great consideration of made up garbage statistics as it's often not objective, especially when coming from fans.

Hewitt was ranked #4 at the end of 2005.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

^^
@aditya123 @Sunny Ali
my previous post in this thread.

LOL, outstanding gif! I watched the Tamil version of that movie

 

[Third Serve]

Boy this stat is nonsense. Doesn’t tell us anything at all lol

 

[aditya123]

LOL, outstanding gif! I watched the Tamil version of that movie

Enna pesre???

 

[PilotPete]

All based on the flawed assumption that ranking correlates with level. It's really no different than eye test.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Enna pesre???

Otha Machan, super da! Are you Tamilan?

 

[Lew II]

All based on the flawed assumption that ranking correlates with level. It's really no different than eye test.

Why does the ATP uses the ranking instead of the eye test of a jury then

 

[Lew II]

All time highest:

1978 RG Borg 81.2
1977 RG Vilas 76.3
1980 RG Borg 71.1
2019 AO Djokovic 69.5
2017 RG Nadal 69.3
2008 RG Nadal 67.8

Mostly RGs, as on clay it is easier to break serve.

 

[Third Serve]

While we’re on the topic, what does everyone think are the best SF-F performances of the Big 3?

 

[aditya123]

Otha Machan, super da! Are you Tamilan?

No... Marathi/Telugu... Know some words and sentences in tamil like Apdiya, vayu mud, romba, nalla irkiya etc

 

[RS]

I don’t think Roddick was a 9/10 in any match vs Federer.

That is very very high but he is sure underrated by some many here.

Maybe 8.5 i was making them higher for a reason.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

No... Marathi/Telugu... Know some words and sentences in tamil like Apdiya, vayu mud, romba, nalla irkiya etc

Awesome Machi. Now learn some of the other important words such as otha & omala

 

[mike danny]

While we’re on the topic, what does everyone think are the best SF-F performances of the Big 3?

Federer Wimb 2005 or Wimb 2012.
Nadal FO 2008
Djokovic AO 2011.

 

[RS]

Federer Wimb 2005 or Wimb 2012.
Nadal FO 2008
Djokovic AO 2011.

This is a hot take indeed from the Federer fanbase.

Over everything from 2003-09?

 

[mike danny]

This is a hot take indeed from the Federer fanbase.

Over everything from 2003-09?

Hey, a great performance is a great performance. Especially considering his age at that time.

 

[RS]

Hey, a great performance is a great performance. Especially considering his age at that time.

But do you think he played better or just because he was older and the tough draw?

 

[mike danny]

But do you think he played better or just because he was older?

Mainly because of his age and he did roll back the years then anyway.

Believe it or not, it was not set in stone back then that Fed at his age would win a slam. Wasn't the way it is now when it would be a shock if mid 30's Djokodal won no slams this year.

 

[PilotPete]

Why does the ATP uses the ranking instead of the eye test of a jury then

Self promotion. It is the 'ATP' rankings after all.

 

[JaoSousa]

You can't really subtract a ranking from a percentage...

 

[JaoSousa]

Thirdwheelerer confirmed by math yet again.

If you call this math, oh boy...

 

[JaoSousa]

The "statistic" gives far too much weight to games won percentage (by the way, matches are often more lopsided on clay than they are on grass or fast hc)

If the players' ranks were 2 and 8, you would only subtract 4 from the percentage, which doesn't account for difficulty factor at all. Raw data is much better than brainlessly combining them like this.

 

[RS]

Mainly because of his age and he did roll back the years then anyway.

Believe it or not, it was not set in stone back then that Fed at his age would win a slam. Wasn't the way it is now when it would be a shock if mid 30's Djokodal won no slams this year.

I think it just asked about the level itself but if you still choose 2012 final.

 

[mike danny]

I think it just asked about the level itself but if you still choose 2012 final.

That's why I said "or". Not going with 2012 definitely.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Why does the ATP uses the ranking instead of the eye test of a jury then

It’s mostly marketing. You can market #1 Player in the world, it has a ring to it.

At least nowadays, the ranking is transparent. Back in the day it was some hidden equation that they only published the results of when they liked it.

You can't really subtract a ranking from a percentage...

The "statistic" gives far too much weight to games won percentage (by the way, matches are often more lopsided on clay than they are on grass or fast hc)

If the players' ranks were 2 and 8, you would only subtract 4 from the percentage, which doesn't account for difficulty factor at all. Raw data is much better than brainlessly combining them like this.

Word.

Ranking is just a number that rates the player’s level of success at that moment. It’s a relative ranking and aside from the fact it’s not very useful in comparing rankings across different years or eras, it also can’t take into account any numerical separation from each ranking into account.

For example, if you are calculating something about aces relative to the tour, but instead of using the actual number of aces, you calculated it based on where a player ranked in number of aces that year. So, the #5 ranked person get 10% less credit than the #4 ranked person, even though it happens that the #5 ranked person hit half the number of aces as the #4 ranked person. That’s just one thing that your formula is doing.