Criteria for Most Even Share of Titles Won Across Majors

[kandamrgam]

I may not have worded the title appropriately. I hear it all the time that one player's achievement has a significant surface bias. For eg, Nadal's 9/14 Majors have come from RG. Which is true but does is it necessarily indicate Nadal has shown lesser all surface versatility in winning Majors? What is the criterion upon which you would choose the more versatile achievement? I think my question is clear. I would like to hear the different opinions on how you see it.

Mine would be (order - [AO, RG, WC, UO]):

1. More minimum number of wins in 3 Majors on distinct surfaces

For eg,

Player1 = 4, 1, 7, 5
Player2 = 1, 9, 2, 2

Here Player2 wins since he has at least 2 title wins at 3 different Majors on distinct surfaces whereas Player1 has only at least 1 win at 3 different Majors across distinct surfaces. But if we have,

Player1 = 4, 1, 7, 5
Player2 = 4, 1, 1, 2

then we have a tie again. So onto next tiebreaker criterion.

2. More minimum number of wins in 2 Majors on distinct surfaces

For eg,

Player1 = 4, 1, 7, 5
Player2 = 4, 1, 1, 2

Here Player1 wins since he has at least 5 title wins at 2 different Majors on distinct surfaces whereas Player1 has only at least 1 win at 2 different Majors on distinct surfaces. But had it been like,

Player1 = 4, 1, 1, 2
Player2 = 2, 1, 1, 2

we again have a tie. In which case I go on to next criterion.

3. More overall Major wins

Eg,

Player1 = 4, 1, 1, 2
Player2 = 2, 1, 1, 2

At this stage whoever has more overall Major titles he wins. Which is Player1 here.

-------------------------------
Was a good academic exercise for me... Few points:

1. I am not into who is the better player in Majors overall. I dont have any doubt it is Sampras over Agassi. I am exploring how can we say someone has shown more versatility in winning Majors. I mean who has the better Slam record considering versatility. By versatility I mean all surface adaptability. In other words, I consider the surfaces they have won.

2. I am also not after mere paper balance of Majors. For eg, a guy who won [2, 2, 2, 2] is more balanced than a guy who won [2, 9, 2, 2] but that doesn't prove former is more versatile. In fact latter is equally versatile and overall a better player at the Majors. This is what I am after.

3. My criteria don't penalize someone for being extra good at one Major/surface, and rightly so. It just sees how has one adapted to every Major/surface compared to another pro.

4. I have ignored one of the most frequently used stat on TTW to compare players for versatility which is more wins in individual Majors. It leads to circular greatnesses. For eg,

Player1 = 0, 6, 5, 0
Player2 = 0, 1, 3, 4
Player3 = 0, 0, 6, 2

In this case, Player1 > Player2 (since Player1 leads Player2 at RG and WC while Player2 leads only at UO) and Player2 > Player3 (since Player2 leads at RG and UO while Player3 leads only at WC) but Player3 > Player1 (since Player3 leads at WC and UO while Player1 leads only at RG).

This kind of measuring is mathematically illogical because an absolute score cant be deduced for a player by this criterion since a score will depend on who he is comparing to. It can be exposed by a simpler case, say Player1 = [0, 0, 4, 2] and Player2 = [0, 3, 3, 0]. Here Player1 leads at both WC and UO while Player2 leads only at RG. Does this mean Player1 has shown more versatility? In essence both the players won at two Majors they are comfortable. In fact a case can be made for Player2's record being more balanced.

5. I have not given winning over distinct Majors and winning over distinct surfaces as such any importance. It is because of the anomaly of having more than 1 Major for a particular surface (in recent times there are 2 HC Majors). For this reason I have not considered Career GS as a criterion. For e.g. between [1, 1, 1, 1] and [0, 2, 2, 2] I have chosen the second one as more versatile since it requires a player to win Majors on every surface twice. For one, if a player has his favourite surface as hards then he gets double opportunity to have an even spread of Majors (for e.g. Federer has at least 4 Majors at AO, WC and UO each though AO and UO are essentially the same surface which helps Federer here). For two, if a player has hards as his least favourite surface then he gets double the opportunity to have a more even spread of wins on different surfaces (for e.g. if Nadal wins another WC, then he will have at least 3 Majors on clay, grass and hard even though he needed help from both UO and AO to reach the number 3 on hards). What I have considered is 3 best Majors with distinct surfaces. And after that, 2 best Majors with distinct surfaces. That solves the problem.

-------------------------------
Going by my criteria Nadal > Federer > Connors > Wilander > Agassi > Sampras > Borg > Djokovic > Lendl > McEnroe > Becker ~ Edberg. Highly controversial, right? Connors is the big gainer while Djokovic loses out big time.

Two people I think would be interested in this are falstaff78 and NatF. Remember having a discussion with them on this subject before. How to quote them here?

 

[timnz]

How about.....

I hear it all the time that one player's achievement has a significant surface bias. For eg, Nadal's 9/14 Majors have come from RG. Which is true and in my opinion I wont consider Nadal's resume better than Federer's even if he passes 17 Major mark with that sort of concentration of RG titles.

But what is the criterion upon which you would choose the more versatile achievement? I think my question is clear. I would like to hear the different opinions on how you see it.

Mine would be, in the order [AO, RG, WC, UO]:

1. More no of CGS.

For eg,

Player1 = 2, 0, 7, 5
Player2 = 1, 9, 2, 2

In this case Player2 wins since he has at least 1 win everywhere. But if it looks like,

Player1 = 4, 1, 7, 5
Player2 = 1, 9, 2, 2

then it is a tie. So we get to next criterion.

2. More wins in distinct Majors

For eg,

Player1 = 4, 1, 7, 5
Player2 = 1, 9, 2, 2

Here Player1 wins since he has more titles in 3 of the Majors than Player2 who only leads in RG titles. But if it is like,

Player1 = 1, 3, 3, 1
Player2 = 2, 2, 1, 2

then we have a tie again. So onto next tiebreaker criterion.

3. More minimum number of wins on each of the three surfaces (ie, clay, hard and grass)

For eg (assuming RG is clay, AO and UO are hard, WC is grass),

Player1 = 1, 3, 3, 1
Player2 = 2, 2, 1, 2

In this case Player1 wins since he has at least 2 Majors on each clay, hard and grass, while Player2 has only 1 each. But had it been like,

Player1 = 4, 2, 1, 1
Player2 = 2, 1, 3, 2

we again have a tie. In which case I go on to next criterion.

4. More minimum number of wins at 3 of the 4 Majors (same as category 1 but we consider 3 best Majors instead of all 4)

For eg,

Player1 = 4, 2, 1, 1
Player2 = 2, 1, 3, 2

In this case Player2 wins since he has at least 2 wins at his 3 best Majors - AO, WC and UO, whereas Player1 can only claim 1 each. But what if this was the case,

Player1 = 4, 2, 1, 1
Player2 = 4, 1, 3, 1

there is a tie again. So onto next tiebreaker.

5. More minimum number of wins on 2 different surfaces

Eg,

Player1 = 4, 2, 1, 1
Player2 = 4, 1, 3, 1

Here Player2 wins since he has at least 3 wins on both hard and grass surfaces, where as Player1 has only 2 wins across hard and clay surfaces. But this is tricky,

Player1 = 4, 1, 1, 3
Player2 = 1, 1, 1, 4

in this case it is a tie again. So onto next tiebreaker rule.

6. More minimum number of wins at 2 different Majors

Eg,
Player1 = 4, 1, 1, 3
Player2 = 1, 1, 1, 4

Here Player1 wins since he has at least 3 wins at AO and UO while Player2 has only 1 title at two different Majors. But what about this,

Player1 = 4, 1, 1, 1
Player2 = 1, 1, 1, 3

which is a tie. So on to next tiebreaker.

7. More overall Major wins

Eg,

Player1 = 4, 1, 1, 1
Player2 = 1, 1, 1, 3

At this stage whoever has more overall Major titles he wins. Which is Player1 here.

-------------------------------
Was a good academic exercise for me.. Few points:

1. Going by my criteria Federer > Nadal > Agassi > Sampras > Djokovic > Wilander > Connors > Lendl > Edberg > Becker > Borg > McEnroe > Courier in terms of versatility in Major wins. Highly controversial, right?

2. I am certainly not into who is the better player in Majors overall. I dont have any doubt it is Sampras over Agassi. I am exploring how can we say someone has shown more versatility in winning Majors. I mean who is the better Slam player even after considering versatility. I am also not after whose resume has more balanced spread of Majors. For eg, a guy who won [2, 2, 2, 2] is more balanced than a guy who won [2, 9, 2, 2] but that doesn't prove former is more versatile. In fact latter is equally versatile and overall a better player at the Majors. This is what I am after.

3. My criteria don't penalize someone for being extra good at one Major, and rightly so. It just sees how has one adapted to every Major compared to another pro.

4. Though I have used some logic behind all my choices, all my picks aren't controversial, except may be for the one in point 3. I mean all my picks would be what most guys would pick just being "seeing" the spread of Majors.

Two people I think would be interested in this are falstaff78 and NatF. Remember having a discussion with them on this subject before. How to quote them here?

because no one has won 3 of each. How about broadening the criteria. For instance - who has got to at least 5 finals on Slams?

 

[ledwix]

The above list is convoluted to the point where no one could agree on it.

I would just take the variance, a quantity describing how much fluctuation appears in the four grand slam events.

Having more career grand slams first doesn't make much sense to me. A player with 2-2-12-2 isn't nearly as balanced as someone else with 1-6-7-4.

 

[kandamrgam]

because no one has won 3 of each. How about broadening the criteria. For instance - who has got to at least 5 finals on Slams?

Haha timnz, that dates long back to a dissent we once had, I remember I am merely considering who has shown more versatility in the Majors won, in a way to see who has accumulated Major wins from specialization, like the case of Nadal.

Sure that looks good too. I don't find it very convincing for me. For eg,

Player1 = 1/5, 9/9, 2/5, 2/5
Player2 = 2/3, 1/5, 7/9, 5/6

Are you telling me here Player1 has shown more versatility? I would go with Player2. As an opinion yours is just fine.

 

[kandamrgam]

The above list is convoluted to the point where no one could agree on it.

I would just take the variance, a quantity describing how much fluctuation appears in the four grand slam events.

Having more career grand slams first doesn't make much sense to me. A player with 2-2-12-2 isn't nearly as balanced as someone else with 1-6-7-4.

1. I wasn't looking for balance. Balance doesn't make someone better. For eg, 2-2-2-2 is more balanced than 2-3-2-2, but latter in every way is bigger achievement even after showing the same versatility of former.

2. In your case Player1 is good enough to win every Slam twice. Player2 is good enough to win every Slam only once. In other words, Player2 has accumulated his Majors from his stronger tournaments (which is still 3 tournaments), ie has a more lopsided Major count. It's ok to disagree on, just stating my rationale. I have had this debate her previously and like you many can't agree to it.

3. Could you state your exact logic then? Forming a ruleset strengthens your logic. Otherwise it looks more like "I know it when I see it" and it can be inconsistent. Just interested to hear.

 

[ledwix]

1. I wasn't looking for balance. Balance doesn't make someone better. For eg, 2-2-2-2 is more balanced than 2-3-2-2, but latter in every way is bigger achievement even after showing the same versatility of former.

2. In your case Player1 is good enough to win every Slam twice. Player2 is good enough to win every Slam only once. In other words, Player2 has accumulated his Majors from his stronger tournaments (which is still 3 tournaments), ie has a more lopsided Major count.

3. Could you state your exact logic then? Forming a rule set strengthens your logic.

1. You said you were looking to compare how even and versatile a player is across majors, which implies balance. I gave examples of cases where the total slam count is held constant [18], and in that case, balance shows more versatility. Technically it doesn't get any more balanced than 2-3-2-2 for a player who wins 9 majors.

2. It is not necessarily more lopsided; you are prioritizing zeros and ones, and not taking the larger differences between larger numbers into account. Sampras has smaller variance in his slams than Nadal despite not winning the career slam. (2,0,7,5) is a closer together set than (1,9,2,2), i.e. it will be a shorter vector in space.

3. My logic is just to use the mathematical variance; it's going to be a crude number with such a small sample size, but anything else is going to be crude too. It doesn't bias towards zeros and ones, just takes everything into account and summarizes it quickly.

Ah, I see. You must want to compare players whose slam counts aren't even. Then I would take some combination of total majors plus a factor that weights variance. But that would be hard to agree on.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

But why do you do you want to have a quantitative model in the first place, to analyse datas which are narrow enough to be analyzed qualitatively, which allow to take into account many more parameters, such as their whole careers and context of their careers instead of only the slam wins?

Your model is quiet bad if it tells you that Borg is less versatile than Wilander. It'a a bad academic exercice to try to create a model that either tells you stupid things, or tell you things you already know thanks to a more comprehensive approach.

 

[Russeljones]

Too much focus on majors, as always.

 

[tennisaddict]

Johannson and Rafa both have 1 AO.

Novak has 0 RG while Stan and Moya have one.



The model needs to consider finals and career win-loss percentage.

 

[kandamrgam]

But why do you do you want to have a quantitative model in the first place, to analyse datas which are narrow enough to be analyzed qualitatively, which allow to take into account many more parameters, such as their whole careers and context of their careers instead of only the slam wins?

Your model is quiet bad if it tells you that Borg is less versatile than Wilander. It'a a bad academic exercice to try to create a model that either tells you stupid things, or tell you things you already know thanks to a more comprehensive approach.

1. A quantitative model is important because otherwise it creates a "I know when I see it" situations. There will be bias. Furthermore, forming a rule-set helps you understand your own logic better.

Here's an example. I have heard this from the majority here that Sampras's Majors share has a more even spread than Nadal's whose titles comes mainly from RG. Their logic is Sampras leads in 3 of the 4 Majors even though he lacks RG. On the contrary I dunno how many of them would say by the same logic McEnroe [0, 0, 3, 4] has a more even haul than Djokovic [5, 0, 2, 1] considering he leads Djoker 2:1.

2. Good question. I was merely interested in finding the lopsided-ness in Slam wins. You know the Nadal case. So if Nadal's Major tally has RG bias, then who did better than him in terms of versatility, and more importantly how.

Players on TTW are judged by how good they were and also how much they have won. They dont always dovetail. Who has had a better career is one thing, who was a better player is one thing. I was merely interested in former, and not at all latter which I clearly mentioned in my OP.

Sure enough, this is not end of all. There are many more parameters to be considered when assessing one's career. Major titles and the versatility of haul is one important metric which was being considered here.

3. As it should be clear by now, I didnt say Borg is less versatile than Wilander. All I meant was in terms of Majors won Wilander's record is more versatile. Sure dominating two surfaces is worse than winning 2 Majors across 3 surfaces in my book. To disagree is fine.

4. I agree it is bad exercise if it tells you stupid things (in my case it doesnt), but I dont agree it is bad if it tells you things you already knew. I mean that depends on how sure you're about the things you know. Empirical studies were always useful to dispel longstanding myths and misunderstandings.

 

[kandamrgam]

Too much focus on majors, as always.

As a general point I get it. I dont see if anything as such is wrong with my OP.

 

[kandamrgam]

Johannson and Rafa both have 1 AO.

Novak has 0 RG while Stan and Moya have one.



The model needs to consider finals and career win-loss percentage.

Thanks for not reading OP

 

[kandamrgam]

1. You said you were looking to compare how even and versatile a player is across majors, which implies balance. I gave examples of cases where the total slam count is held constant [18], and in that case, balance shows more versatility. Technically it doesn't get any more balanced than 2-3-2-2 for a player who wins 9 majors.

2. It is not necessarily more lopsided; you are prioritizing zeros and ones, and not taking the larger differences between larger numbers into account. Sampras has smaller variance in his slams than Nadal despite not winning the career slam. (2,0,7,5) is a closer together set than (1,9,2,2), i.e. it will be a shorter vector in space.

3. My logic is just to use the mathematical variance; it's going to be a crude number with such a small sample size, but anything else is going to be crude too. It doesn't bias towards zeros and ones, just takes everything into account and summarizes it quickly.

Ah, I see. You must want to compare players whose slam counts aren't even. Then I would take some combination of total majors plus a factor that weights variance. But that would be hard to agree on.

1. We can disagree on whether which requires more versatility from a tennis player between 2-2-12-2 and 1-6-7-4. I have heard many to agree with you, so it is fine. I just have a different criterion. Again using the word "balance" implies mere mathematical balance on paper, ie, lower variance and all that, to my ears. I prefer the word "versatility" which conveys the point better imo, ie skill required to master all 4.

2. Ah, you're right! Indeed variance makes sense only in cases where two players who have won the equal no. of Majors. It is useless to compare these two sets:

[0, 9, 0, 0]
[1, 1, 1, 1]

and

[2, 2, 2, 2]
[2, 9, 2, 2]

In the first case variance tells us that the second player is more versatile and rightly so but in the second case variance tells us that first player is more versatile which is wrong.

Variance also doesn't account for surface balance. I think we could variance as a sub-condition when there are ties (according to some other logic). As an opinion your idea is just fine.

 

[tennisaddict]

Thanks for not reading OP

Too much focus on winning major titles. Enough said.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

1. A quantitative model is important because otherwise it creates a "I know when I see it" situations. There will be bias. Furthermore, forming a rule-set helps you understand your own logic better.

A quantitative model isn't the only way to reach "scientific conclusions". What matter the most is to have a systematic approach, to avoid bias. Your approach has the benefit of being very transparent, but it is full of bias. You restricter the scope of your question so much that it become rather uninteresting. Why only take into account titles won across majors, and not every kind of results? In the future, when we will compare Djokovic and Sampras, nobody will say that Sampras was as good as Djokovic at RG/on clay because none of them have won RG.

an example. I have heard this from the majority here that Sampras's Majors share has a more even spread than Nadal's whose titles comes mainly from RG. Their logic is Sampras leads in 3 of the 4 Majors even though he lacks RG. On the contrary I dunno how many of them would say by the same logic McEnroe [0, 0, 3, 4] has a more even haul than Djokovic [5, 0, 2, 1] considering he leads Djoker 2:1.

Well I think they have a point if you restrict the analysis to majors won. I personally think that their is a bigger gap between winning 1 vs 0 RG than between 2 vs 1 AO. But with a quantitative approach you have your answer. Even if Nadal had 2, 9, 6, 4, Sampras would still lead 2-1.

Now if you don't restrict your analysis to majors won only, then it become very hard to argue that Sampras has a better distribution of success across surfaces. Look at finals and SF reached, M1000, etc.

Regarding McEnroe vs Djokovic, shouldn't we take into account that the AO wasn't considered a legit majors during McEnroe's time, and that he even skipped or didn't try to hard to win it the few time he did participate? This apply to Borg and Connors too. If you only consider the 4 current majors, you show a strong bias against the 70's players.

You say that Wilander has a more versatile record than Borg, but Borg didn't compete at the AO, while Wilander recorded some AO victories when it was on it course to become a true major, but wasn't yet so. It's not a good empirical inquiry if you don't take into account context.