Credit to Djokovic for having by far the most balanced resume of Big Titles Among the Big 3

[McEnroeisanartist]

I think most tennis fans would agree that the tennis season can be split into two halves: Australian Open to French Open and Wimbledon to ATP Tour Finals. There are 7 big tournaments in each half of the season.

In the first half, Djokovic has won 30 Big Titles. In the second half, he has won 28 Big Titles.

Compare that to Federer: 22 and 32.

And Nadal: 42 and 13.

 

[GabeT]

We debate this so much we should have a standard measure of distribution. Any stat experts reading this? What would you suggest?

 

[Incognito]

Wow Nadal sucks

 

[Antonio Puente]

Big Titles = a joke statistic. In the real world, Bercy does not equal a slam.

 

[ND-13]

We debate this so much we should have a standard measure of distribution. Any stat experts reading this? What would you suggest?

It is very easy to interpret this number. However the first question should be whether the rationale is correct and fair ?

Does it matter what his major count on clay is when he has won 7 majors outside of clay?

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I think most tennis fans would agree that the tennis season can be split into two halves: Australian Open to French Open and Wimbledon to ATP Tour Finals. There are 7 big tournaments in each half of the season.

Literally nobody would agree with this.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

We debate this so much we should have a standard measure of distribution. Any stat experts reading this? What would you suggest?

Everyone is far too neurotic about distribution. It doesn't have to fit some pre-determined metric of evenness.

What matters is showing prowess and ability across the board.

 

[Turning Pro]

 

[GabeT]

It is very easy to interpret this number. However the first question should be whether the rationale is correct and fair ?

Does it matter what his major count on clay is when he has won 7 majors outside of clay?

I think the point is what question are you trying to answer.

if all you ask is who won the most tournaments (slams, Tier 1) then all you need is the headline number.

if you ask who is best at slams though you need to look closer at the distribution. A hypothetical player with 30 Wimbledons would have the most slams but would not be considered the best at slams, just the best at Wimbledon.

in the Fedal comparison if Nadal beats Federer in overall titles but Federer beats Nadal in 3 of the 4 slams that‘s a relevant point.

 

[ND-13]

I think the point is what question are you trying to answer.

if all you ask is who won the most tournaments (slams, Tier 1) then all you need is the headline number.

if you ask who is best at slams though you need to look closer at the distribution. A hypothetical player with 30 Wimbledons would have the most slams but would not be considered the best at slams, just the best at Wimbledon.

in the Fedal comparison if Nadal beats Federer in overall titles but Federer beats Nadal in 3 of the 4 slams that‘s a relevant point.

Nadal has won enough outside clay, so this point is moot.

 

[GabeT]

Nadal has won enough outside clay, so this point is moot.

No one argues that he’s won a lot outside of clay. The point is that (in this comparison) Federer won much more.

and this is particularly relevant since clay is only 30% of the pro tour.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Distribution? Nobody would choose Djoker’s slams over Fed’s, aside from the obvious fact he has 3 less. So put it to bed.

Fed:

8 Wimbledon
6 AO
5 straight USO
1 FO

Novak:

5 Wimbledon
8 AO
3 USO
1 FO

 

[helterskelter]

I think the point is what question are you trying to answer.

if all you ask is who won the most tournaments (slams, Tier 1) then all you need is the headline number.

if you ask who is best at slams though you need to look closer at the distribution. A hypothetical player with 30 Wimbledons would have the most slams but would not be considered the best at slams, just the best at Wimbledon.

in the Fedal comparison if Nadal beats Federer in overall titles but Federer beats Nadal in 3 of the 4 slams that‘s a relevant point.

One question is whether, when thinking about distribution, we should compare Slam to Slam (e.g. Federer at Australian Open v Nadal at Australian Open) or by ranking the Slams in order of preference (e.g. Federer at his second-favorite Slam v Nadal at his second-favorite Slam). Here's how it works out right now by the two methods:

A: By particular Slam
1. Australian Open: Federer 6-1 Nadal
2. Roland Garros: Nadal 13-1 Federer
3. Wimbledon: Federer 8-2 Nadal
4. US Open: Federer: 5-4 Nadal

B: By Slam ranking
1. At favorite Slam: Nadal 13-8 Federer
2. At second-favorite Slam: Federer 6-4 Nadal
3. At third-favorite Slam: Federer 5-2 Nadal
4. At least-favorite Slam: Federer 1-1 Nadal. Tiebreak: finals reached. Federer 5-5 Nadal. Second tiebreak: semi-finals reached. Federer 3-1 Nadal.

So, right now, Federer leads in three of the four Slams by either metric. But if you change to the second one, things get more complicated. It becomes harder for Nadal to catch Federer at their second-favorite Slams, as he needs two more US Open titles to tie, and not just one. However, it becomes much easier for him to catch Federer at their weakest Slams, as he overtakes him with just one more appearance in the Australian Open final. If Nadal were better than Federer at both their favorite and their least-favorite respective Slams, the case for Federer's superior distribution might hold less water.

 

[r2473]

I think most tennis fans would agree that the tennis season can be split into two halves: Australian Open to French Open and Wimbledon to ATP Tour Finals.

Literally nobody would agree with this.

I think the split most of us use is surfaces.

And most sensible people know which "big titles" actually mean something and which don't.

 

[ND-13]

No one argues that he’s won a lot outside of clay. The point is that (in this comparison) Federer won much more.

and this is particularly relevant since clay is only 30% of the pro tour.

It is more difficult to win on clay. Ask Pete, Fed and Djoker.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

No one argues that he’s won a lot outside of clay. The point is that (in this comparison) Federer won much more.

and this is particularly relevant since clay is only 30% of the pro tour.

Last time I checked, it was I believe 33-35%, which means that clay is under-represented in both the majors and the "Big 14 titles". In fact, the skew is even worse if you're one of those people who lumps the YEC in with the Majors (I'm not).

But, if you want to play that game, the real outlier is Wimbledon. it is massively over-represented at the major level at 25%. The tour is in the single digit percentages for grass tournaments, and that includes the post-W tourneys that the best players ignore. Not to mention that (i) nobody grows up playing on grass, (ii) nobody trains to be a grass player, and (iii) grass court tennis basically doesn't exist outside of Wimbledon and some fancy private clubs. I'm all for more grass play in the general public and on tour, but let's call a spade a spade.

 

[PilotPete]

Distribution? Nobody would choose Djoker’s slams over Fed’s, aside from the obvious fact he has 3 less. So put it to bed.

Fed:

8 Wimbledon
6 AO
5 straight USO
1 FO

Novak:

5 Wimbledon
8 AO
3 USO
1 FO

They're really not that different.

 

[GabeT]

One question is whether, when thinking about distribution, we should compare Slam to Slam (e.g. Federer at Australian Open v Nadal at Australian Open) or by ranking the Slams in order of preference (e.g. Federer at his second-favorite Slam v Nadal at his second-favorite Slam). Here's how it works out right now by the two methods:

A: By particular Slam
1. Australian Open: Federer 6-1 Nadal
2. Roland Garros: Nadal 13-1 Federer
3. Wimbledon: Federer 8-2 Nadal
4. US Open: Federer: 5-4 Nadal

B: By Slam ranking
1. At favorite Slam: Nadal 13-8 Federer
2. At second-favorite Slam: Federer 6-4 Nadal
3. At third-favorite Slam: Federer 5-2 Nadal
4. At least-favorite Slam: Federer 1-1 Nadal. Tiebreak: finals reached. Federer 5-5 Nadal. Second tiebreak: semi-finals reached. Federer 3-1 Nadal.

So, right now, Federer leads in three of the four Slams by either metric. But if you change to the second one, things get more complicated. It becomes harder for Nadal to catch Federer at their second-favorite Slams, as he needs two more US Open titles to tie, and not just one. However, it becomes much easier for him to catch Federer at their weakest Slams, as he overtakes him with just one more appearance in the Australian Open final. If Nadal were better than Federer at both their favorite and their least-favorite respective Slams, the case for Federer's superior distribution might hold less water.

I see your point but not sure what the second approach is meant to measure.

 

[TennisProExpert]

There’s slams and there’s overall titles.

 

[TennisProExpert]

They're really not that different.

True, but Federer won most of his in a stronger era during his prime years. Novak won quite a few since 2018.

 

[GabeT]

Last time I checked, it was I believe 33-35%, which means that clay is under-represented in both the majors and the "Big 14 titles". In fact, the skew is even worse if you're one of those people who lumps the YEC in with the Majors (I'm not).

But, if you want to play that game, the real outlier is Wimbledon. it is massively over-represented at the major level at 25%. The tour is in the single digit percentages for grass tournaments, and that includes the post-W tourneys that the best players ignore. Not to mention that (i) nobody grows up playing on grass, (ii) nobody trains to be a grass player, and (iii) grass court tennis basically doesn't exist outside of Wimbledon and some fancy private clubs. I'm all for more grass play in the general public and on tour, but let's call a spade a spade.

there Is no such thing as over or under representation. That would require some kind of standard distribution of surfaces that all agree, say 1/3 each of clay, grass, amd HC. But that‘s not how the pro tour is structured. We don’t even have 3 surfaces. We have clear dominance of HC (about 70%), another 30% for clay and one very important grass tournament.

the pro tour distribution of surfaces and tournaments is what establishes the point of reference because that‘s what players have to face. So if there are four slams then if you are comparing 2 players and trying to determine who is better overall I think it makes sense to look at the distribution

 

[GabeT]

Distribution? Nobody would choose Djoker’s slams over Fed’s, aside from the obvious fact he has 3 less. So put it to bed.

Fed:

8 Wimbledon
6 AO
5 straight USO
1 FO

Novak:

5 Wimbledon
8 AO
3 USO
1 FO

But the different distrIbution is a direct result of having won 3 less slams. if Novak ties Federer at slams he will have won another 3 slams. Depending on what he wins that new distribution could be “better” than Fed’s

 

[GabeT]

It is more difficult to win on clay. Ask Pete, Fed and Djoker.

It’s more difficult for grass and HC players. The fact that we think of Pete and Fed as great tennis players is a direct result of how the pro tour is structured, where clay is less relevant. If the pro tour had moved to 100% clay courts chances are Sampras would have never become an ATG

 

[E36BMWM3]

These threads are getting borderline comical now

 

[FrontHeadlock]

there Is no such thing as over or under representation. That would require some kind of standard distribution of surfaces that all agree, say 1/3 each of clay, grass, amd HC. But that‘s not how the pro tour is structured. We don’t even have 3 surfaces. We have clear dominance of HC (about 70%), another 30% for clay and one very important grass tournament.

the pro tour distribution of surfaces and tournaments is what establishes the point of reference because that‘s what players have to face. So if there are four slams then if you are comparing 2 players and trying to determine who is better overall I think it makes sense to look at the distribution

Well, putting aside that I do not agree with your premise, distribution takes care of itself in a way because winning only on one surface makes it harder to hit overall numbers. So in that respect you have to generally be good everywhere.

But you and others are very neurotic about this, especially as it relates to Nadal. He has shown he can play with and beat the best on all surfaces. Thus, the particular distribution is a non-issue. Likewise for Roger on clay -- 6 Masters, 1 RG and 5 RG finals is more than enough to show prowess on clay.

 

[GabeT]

Well, putting aside that I do not agree with your premise, distribution takes care of itself in a way because winning only on one surface makes it harder to hit overall numbers. So in that respect you have to generally be good everywhere.

But you and others are very neurotic about this, especially as it relates to Nadal. He has shown he can play with and beat the best on all surfaces. Thus, the particular distribution is a non-issue. Likewise for Roger on clay -- 6 Masters, 1 RG and 5 RG finals is more than enough to show prowess on clay.

No one argues that Nadal can win, and a lot in all kinds of tournaments and surfaces (well, maybe except for WTF ).That’s really not the point so am not sure why you mention it.

the point is what are you trying to measure. if all you are measuring is most slams won just look at the top line number. If you want to measure who is the best at all the slams you need to dig further.

another way of looking at it is who would you choose to represent you if your life depended on them winning at slam at their peak, but you didn’t know ahead of time which slam would be chosen (assuming all are equally likely).

 

[FrontHeadlock]

No one argues that Nadal can win, and a lot in all kinds of tournaments and surfaces (well, maybe except for WTF ).That’s really not the point so am not sure why you mention it.

the point is what are you trying to measure. if all you are measuring is most slams won just look at the top line number. If you want to measure who is the best at all the slams you need to dig further.

another way of looking at it is who would you choose to represent you if your life depended on them winning at slam at their peak, but you didn’t know ahead of time which slam would be chosen (assuming all are equally likely).

You do understand that is a nonsensical way of looking at it, right? Some player winning a random event so you get released from some hypothetical terrorist? Is that where we are lol?

 

[ND-13]

It’s more difficult for grass and HC players. The fact that we think of Pete and Fed as great tennis players is a direct result of how the pro tour is structured, where clay is less relevant. If the pro tour had moved to 100% clay courts chances are Sampras would have never become an ATG

Fed grew up on clay. Djokovic has won so many masters title on clay. Sampras won DC and Rome on Clay. So the premise that they are grass / HC players is not true. They have more success on grass / HC and they have not had the success in majors as much as they would have liked.

Nadal has managed to do both. Win on his best surface as well as prove time and again he is good to beat the best on the other surfaces. Which Fed and Djoker cannot claim.

We need to appreciate what all the 3 have done rather than nitpick.

 

[GabeT]

You do understand that is a nonsensical way of looking at it, right? Some player winning a random event so you get released from some hypothetical terrorist? Is that where we are lol?

Sorry you couldn’t follow the point

 

[GabeT]

Fed grew up on clay. Djokovic has won so many masters title on clay. Sampras won DC and Rome on Clay. So the premise that they are grass / HC players is not true. They have more success on grass / HC and they have not had the success in majors as much as they would have liked.

Nadal has managed to do both. Win on his best surface as well as prove time and again he is good to beat the best on the other surfaces. Which Fed and Djoker cannot claim.

We need to appreciate what all the 3 have done rather than nitpick.

We are analyzing. That requires nitpicking.

 

[Sorry_to_tell_you_mate]

Nadal has won at least 2 slams on every surface, that's balance for you.