Breakdown of Aggregate Slam Quality among the Big 3

Mr X has a net worth of a million bucks. But since 400k was acquired during a weak era, his hypothetical net worth is only 600k; despite having an actual net worth of a million bucks.

Is Mr. X a millionaire?

Answer: Yeah, but no.
I don't see how these situations are similar at all. I would like to have a million any way possible. Don't give a hoot how. If I have a million more, that brings more financial freedom.

If I want to be the best, I want to beat the best at my best.
 
Fed was terrible on BPs but also played a super high-risk game compared to his norm so while his conversion was bad I don’t think it was quite as awful as the numbers suggest.

I think it was a pretty fair strategic choice because he got killed on the baseline in the Wimbledon final. Fed executed it better than I expected, but the errors still came of course.

Pretty good outing overall.
I wouldn't say an utter crap match, I wouldn't say good either. I just saw chunks of replay.

If Fed failed to calibrate risk properly, that's on him man. 12 available chances to break on the second serve.

Until the finals it was a weak draw, and the finals I'd give Fed a 6.75 out of 10. Djokovic maybe an 8. I don't think it deserve to make the list in the OP. I also don't think it is particularly close, to be honest with you.
 
Is this for real?
ay2qld.jpg
 
Real slams. Real strong scalps in your prime against quality opposition in their primes (deep draws or versus prime ATGs). Not this Berrettini, Tsitsipas, 35 yr old Federer, Geriatric v. Geriatric crap.
Who can you beat when you are in your prime. Thats the pinnacle of tennis. Very little value to geriatric stat padding in a weak era.

1) 4 points awarded for navigating through deep draw.
2) 4 points awarded for beating ATG playing atleast a "good" level of tennis or a HOF'er with a high peak at his peak
3) 7 points awarded for navigating a deep draw AND beating ATG at good level or HOF'er with a high peak at his peak
4) 5.5 points can be awarded for draws at a level deemed to be in between 2) and 3)

Ok lets start.

Federer: 11 real slams (57.5 points)
03 WB (Roddick playing ATG level): 4 points
04 AO (Hewwy, Nalby, Ferrero, Safin): 5.5 points
04 WB (Johannsson, Hewitt, Grosjean, peak Roddick): 7 points
05 USO (strong Hewitt....modestly deep w/ Kiefer, old Agassi): 5.5 points
06 WB (Ancic, prime Nadal): 4 points
07 WB (prime Nadal): 5.5
07 USO (strong Roddick, young Djokovic): 5.5 points
08 USO (solid Djokovic): 4 points
09 FO (deep draw featuring Soderling + Delpo): 5.5 points
09 WB (strong Roddick): 4 points
12 WB (Benneteau, Djokovic, peak Murray): 7 points


Nadal: 12 real slams (67.5 points)

05 RG (modest depth w/ Grosjean, Puerta, and prime Fed): 5.5 points
06 RG (deep draw w/ Mathieu, Hewitt, Djokovic, prime Fed): 7 points
07 RG (young Djokovic, prime Fed): 5.5 points
08 RG (deep draw + prime Fed + high level Djokovic): 7 points
08 WB (prime Fed, Murray): 5.5 points
09 AO (deep draw - Gonzalez, Simon, Verdasco, prime Fed): 7 points
10 WB (decent depth w/ grass courters + Berdych + Soderling + Murray (actually played well in 2010 WB)): 4 points
10 USO (solid Djokovic): 4 points
11 RG (deep draw - Isner, Soderling, very good Murray, late prime Fed): 5.5 points
12 RG (Almagro, Ferrer, good prime Djokovic): 5.5 points
13 RG (deep draw with Fognini, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Ferrer, prime Djokovic): 7 points
14 RG (good prime Djokovic): 4 points


Djokovic: 10 real slams (56.5 points)

08 AO (strong draw headlined by Tsonga, Fed): 7 points
11 AO (strong draw, Fed Murray Berdych): 7 points
11 WB (Tomic, Tsonga, mediocre Nadal): 4 points
11 USO (great Fed, mediocre Nadal): 5.5 points
12 AO (Peak Murray, Nadal): 7 points
13 AO (peak Wawa, strong Berdych, good Murray): 7 points
14 WB (deep draw but old Fed): 5.5 points
15 AO (Volatile Stan, Ok Murray): 4 points
15 WB (deep draw but old Fed): 5.5 points
18 WB (Nadal): 4 points
tenor.gif
 
How's it cope? They're all pretty much neck and neck.

Fed/Rafa had higher quality and Djokovic had some higher volume to overcome the lower quality.
 
Last edited:
A new system in the OP to evaluate quality of slams won, check it out. Thoughts on the framework are appreciated and welcome.

The premise is to score Grand Slam achievements by the quality of the opposition defeated and the competitive environment in which they were won...ultimately weighing slams by quality.
 
Last edited:
It’s 2026 and we still playing the same game.
For the first time I'm seeing a quantitative framework to evaluate slam quality. It can be further refined and adjusted to what makes sense, given others' feedback.

But I guess people don't even want to glance at it. It is what it is I suppose.
 
History is made by those who show up. A 'real Slam' is any Slam. Other players not being there, being injured, being unmotivated/playing poorly, that's all part of it. It's just a much a part of it as winning against so-called 'legends'. Sampras has 14, Federer 20, Nadal 22, Djokovic 24, and so on. All of them are real. None deserve an asterisk.
 
History is made by those who show up. A 'real Slam' is any Slam. Other players not being there, being injured, being unmotivated/playing poorly, that's all part of it. It's just a much a part of it as winning against so-called 'legends'. Sampras has 14, Federer 20, Nadal 22, Djokovic 24, and so on. All of them are real. None deserve an asterisk.
I wish I could change the title. But I can’t.

I’ve written a framework and tried to be as objective as possible in my analysis, while removing any frivolity in the OP. Sure there is subjectivity involved in evaluation of individual matches, but I hope I limited any bias.

Feel free to take a look. It’s just a framework to grade aggregate slam quality. The title doesn’t reflect the post.
 
Last edited:
History is made by those who show up. A 'real Slam' is any Slam. Other players not being there, being injured, being unmotivated/playing poorly, that's all part of it. It's just a much a part of it as winning against so-called 'legends'. Sampras has 14, Federer 20, Nadal 22, Djokovic 24, and so on. All of them are real. None deserve an asterisk.
Exactly. You can only play who is front of you. It’s so ignorant to say so and so has an asterisk on a Major just because of something that isn’t in their control to begin with. They are all real when it’s all said and done.
 
Exactly. You can only play who is front of you. It’s so ignorant to say so and so has an asterisk on a Major just because of something that isn’t in their control to begin with. They are all real when it’s all said and done.
For the third time, that’s not what the post is anymore - I can’t change the frivolous title.
 
For the third time, that’s not what the post is anymore - I can’t change the frivolous title.
Lol it’s not about your title choice sir/madam. Post 21 explains a lot of this. There will be subjectivity and bias in most if not all responses. In the end, it’s a moot point, especially with fanatical Big 3 fans. They will find a way to prop up their idol, and devalue the one they hate. The only result in reality is if a player wins a Major, it counts the same regardless.
 
Lol it’s not about your title choice sir/madam. Post 21 explains a lot of this. There will be subjectivity and bias in most if not all responses. In the end, it’s a moot point, especially with fanatical Big 3 fans. They will find a way to prop up their idol, and devalue the one they hate. The only result in reality is if a player wins a Major, it counts the same regardless.

I mean sure. Personally I don’t care enough about who’s the best, but I care about the principle.

The results of the analysis pretty much show they are more or less even, on the basis of quality weighted slams.

If these people get so psychotic about essentially neutral discussions, might be time to wrap it up here
 
I mean sure. Personally I don’t care enough about who’s the best, but I care about the principle.

The results of the analysis pretty much show they are more or less even, on the basis of quality weighted slams.

If these people get so psychotic about essentially neutral discussions, might be time to wrap it up here
It’s definitely something that happens quite often around here with Big 3 and even Sinneraz fanatics. “Roger won most of his titles in a weak era.” “Nadal can’t compete with Roger and Novak off Clay.” “Djokovic vultured his Majors the past few years.”

Those are the most common same old tired arguments these idolizers use. Oh another one for Nadal is he was able to play fellow Spaniards all the time and they were mainly his Pigeons. (I.E. Nadal vs Ferrer in the RG final gets used pretty often lol.)
 
I wish I could change the title. But I can’t.

I’ve written a framework and tried to be as objective as possible in my analysis, while removing any frivolity in the OP. Sure there is subjectivity involved in evaluation of individual matches, but I hope I limited any bias.

Feel free to take a look. It’s just a framework to grade aggregate slam quality. The title doesn’t reflect the post.

Fair enough, but my point is that you can't aggregate Slam quality. The stuff you list in your framework are not useful distinctions IMO.
 
A new clown has joined the circus!
I just look forward to 2040 when Carlos and Sinner are at 14-18 slams and everyone says they are the two greatest ever even with less slams.

"Sinner & Carlos dominated Djoker and Djoker didnt deal with a peak Zverev and a prime Shelton."
"18 slams in equal to 28 slams in 2040"
 
I just look forward to 2040 when Carlos and Sinner are at 14-18 slams and everyone says they are the two greatest ever even with less slams.

"Sinner & Carlos dominated Djoker and Djoker didnt deal with a peak Zverev and a prime Shelton."
"18 slams in equal to 28 slams in 2040"
Ben Shelton and Zverev? Those guys are mugs man.

At least get me an 03-04 level Roddick or an 08-12 Tsonga to come along and challenge them.
 
In this framework, Grand Slam titles are weighted by the average quality of opposition faced, in the circumstances of the era they were in.
Slams won over prime elite opponents and deep tournament fields, are weighted more heavily than slam titles won in weaker competitive environments.

We need to account for strength of draw which is based on two factors: depth and top-end quality. This is reflected in the scoring criteria below.
We also need to account for a multiplier to reflect slam inflation: where grand slam winning opportunities increase as the elite field continues to age and get phased out of professional tennis, while the next generation has not yet matured.


Scoring Criteria

Standard Slam — 4 points: Awarded when the title does not satisfy any of the higher-quality criteria below.
Deep Draw — 5 points: Awarded for navigating a particularly deep field containing several high-quality opponents.
Elite Scalp — 5 points: Awarded for defeating an all-time great playing at least a good level, or a Hall-of-Fame-caliber player performing near his peak.
Elite Draw + Elite Scalp — 7 points: Awarded for navigating a deep draw while also defeating an all-time great playing at a high level, or a Hall-of-Fame-caliber player near his peak.
Intermediate Case — 6 points: Awarded when the overall difficulty falls between an elite scalp or deep draw and the combined elite-draw-plus-elite-scalp category.


Era Multiplier
  • Prime Era (2003–2016): Multiplier = 1.00. Titles are awarded full value.
  • Career Inflation Era (2017–2023): Starting from a factor of 0.8, a compounding 5% annual reduction is applied to reflect the gradual weakening of the field, as the elite talent continues to age, without the consistent presence of an emerging ATG talent.
  • 2017: 0.80×
  • 2018: 0.76×
  • 2019: 0.72×
  • 2020: 0.69×
  • 2021: 0.65×
  • 2022: 0.62×
  • 2023: 0.59×

Federer: Adjusted slam points: 100.2

03 WB (Roddick playing ATG level): 5 points
04 AO (Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Safin): 6 points
04 WB (Johannsson, Hewitt, Grosjean, peak Roddick): 7 points
04 USO: 4 points
05 USO (strong Hewitt....modestly deep w/ Kiefer, old Agassi): 6 points
05 WB (Hewitt was good and modest depth): 5 points
06 AO: 4 points
06 WB (Ancic, prime Nadal): 5 points
06 USO: 4 points
07 AO (Young Novak, decent depth): 5 points
07 WB (prime Nadal): 6 points
07 USO (strong Roddick, young Djokovic): 6 points
08 USO (solid Djokovic): 5 points
09 FO (deep draw featuring Soderling + Delpo): 6 points
09 WB (strong Roddick): 5 points
10 AO: 4 points
12 WB (Benneteau, Djokovic, peak Murray): 7 points
17 AO (old Ned, Stan, deep draw): 5 × 0.80 = 4.00 points
17 WB: 4 × 0.80 = 3.20 points
18 AO: 4 × 0.76 = 3.04 points

Nadal: Adjusted slam points: 105.3

05 RG (modest depth w/ Grosjean, Puerta, and prime Fed): 6 points
06 RG (deep draw w/ Mathieu, Hewitt, Djokovic, prime Fed): 7 points
07 RG (young Djokovic, prime Fed): 6 points
08 RG (deep draw + prime Fed + high level Djokovic): 7 points
08 WB (prime Fed, Murray): 6 points
09 AO (deep draw - Gonzalez, Simon, Verdasco, prime Fed): 7 points
10 RG: 4 points
10 WB (decent depth w/ grass courters + Berdych + Soderling + Murray): 5 points
10 USO (solid Djokovic): 5 points
11 RG (deep draw - Isner, Soderling, very good Murray, late prime Fed): 6 points
12 RG (Almagro, Ferrer, good prime Djokovic): 6 points
13 USO: 4 points
13 RG (deep draw with Fognini, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Ferrer, prime Djokovic): 7 points
14 RG (good prime Djokovic): 5 points
17 RG: 4 × 0.80 = 3.20 points
17 USO: 4 × 0.80 = 3.20 points
18 RG: 4 × 0.76 = 3.04 points
19 RG (best Thiem, Fed, Nishi, modest depth): 5 × 0.72 = 3.60 points
19 USO: 4 × 0.72 = 2.88 points
20 RG: 4 × 0.69 = 2.76 points
22 AO: 4 × 0.62 = 2.48 points
22 RG (ok depth + Ok Djokovic): 5 × 0.62 = 3.10 points

Djokovic: Adjusted slam points: 102.8

08 AO (strong draw headlined by Tsonga, Fed): 7 points
11 AO (strong draw, Fed Murray Berdych): 7 points
11 WB (Tomic, Tsonga, mediocre Nadal): 5 points
11 USO (great Fed, mediocre Nadal): 6 points
12 AO (Peak Murray, Nadal): 7 points
13 AO (peak Wawa, strong Berdych, good Murray): 7 points
14 WB (deep draw but old Fed): 6 points
15 AO (Volatile Stan, Ok Murray): 5 points
15 WB (deep draw but old Fed): 6 points
15 USO: 4 points
16 AO: 4 points
16 FO: 4 points
18 WB (Nadal): 5 × 0.76 = 3.80 points
18 USO: 4 × 0.76 = 3.04 points
19 AO: 4 × 0.72 = 2.88 points
19 WB (Fed): 5 × 0.72 = 3.60 points
20 AO (decent Thiem): 5 × 0.69 = 3.45 points
21 AO: 4 × 0.65 = 2.60 points
21 WB: 4 × 0.65 = 2.60 points
21 FO (Nadal): 5 × 0.65 = 3.25 points
22 WB: 4 × 0.62 = 2.48 points
23 AO: 4 × 0.59 = 2.36 points
23 FO: 4 × 0.59 = 2.36 points
23 USO: 4 × 0.59 = 2.36 points

TLDR; The big 3 are all more or less the same in terms of slam achievements, weighted by quality.
LMAO at awarding Djokovic more points than Federer.
 
Do you know how many threads like this we have gotten when the "wrong guy" won the slam race?
Have we? Most of them don’t even try to quantify the slam quality. They just do some weird arrows like this and do name calling.: “Mugdick >>> Tsonga”

Obviously every analysis is prone to subjectivity, but alas that’s the case with every analysis.

Original OP has changed since the initial one anyways, to mitigate bias/frivolity.
 
Have we? Most of them don’t even try to quantify the slam quality. They just do some weird arrows like this and do name calling.: “Mugdick >>> Tsonga”

Obviously every analysis is prone to subjectivity, but alas that’s the case with every analysis.

Original OP has changed since the initial one anyways, to mitigate bias/frivolity.

Oh yeah, we have.
 
Because I need to prove it to you?

You seriously think this is the first thread to talk about what is known around here as Career Inflation Era by many a folk because they didn't like the slam outcome? :)
Didn’t like? Or just for the sake of tennis analysis?

CIE was coined in 2018, before Djokovic started racking up majors against nobodies at lightning speed. (6 slams in 2021-2023)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Didn’t like? Or just for the sake of tennis analysis?

Tennis analysis is one thing, but complaining about it almost every day goes beyond analysis, especially if that is all you are posting around here.

CIE was coined in 2018, before Djokovic started racking up majors against nobodies at lightning speed. (6 slams in 2021-2023)

Yes, I know you've been here for many years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Didn’t like? Or just for the sake of tennis analysis?

CIE was coined in 2018, before Djokovic started racking up majors against nobodies at lightning speed. (6 slams in 2021-2023)
It was coined in 2018. Took till 2022 to spread like wildfire though.
 
Back
Top