Delve into the USO competition

[Neptune]

​	Top5 matches​	Top5 per tourney​	Top10 matches​	Top10 per tourney​	Ave oppo rank​	Ave oppo Elo​	Lost to oppo rank​	Lost to oppo Elo​
1​	Lendl 17 (8-9)​	Borg 1.11​	Lendl 28 (18-10)​	Lendl 1.75​	Lendl 25​	Lendl 2036​	Borg 4​	Borg 2295​
2​	Connors 17 (8-9)​	Lendl 1.06​	Connors 26 (13-13)​	Borg 1.67​	Borg 25​	Borg 2030​	Nole 5​	Nole 2280​
3​	Nole 16 (8-8)​	Nole 1.00​	Nole 24 (16-8)​	Nole 1.50​	Nole 26​	Nole 2027​	Lendl 5​	Lendl 2245​
4​	Agassi 15 (7-8)​	Pete 0.93​	Agassi 23 (13-10)​	Pete 1.50​	McEnroe 27​	Connors 2027​	Connors 6​	Connors 2235​
5​	McEnroe 14 (8-6)​	McEnroe 0.88​	Fed 22 (16-6)​	McEnroe 1.31​	Pete 28​	McEnroe 2023​	McEnroe 7​	McEnroe 2206​
6​	Pete 13 (9-4)​	Connors 0.77​	Pete 21 (16-5)​	Fed 1.21​	Wawa 30​	Wawa 2006​	Agassi 8​	Fed 2185​
7​	Fed 13 (9-4)​	Agassi 0.71​	McEnroe 21 (15-6)​	Connors 1.18​	Connors 31​	Pete 2003​	Pete 9​	Agassi 2158​
8​	Wawa 10 (5-5)​	Fed 0.68​	Wawa 15 (8-7)​	Agassi 1.10​	Fed 31​	Fed 2001​	Fed 10​	Rafa 2138​
9​	Borg 10 (4-6)​	Wawa 0.63​	Borg 15 (8-7)​	Wawa 0.94​	Agassi 31​	Agassi 1990​	Rafa 11​	Wawa 2129​
10​	...​	...​	...​	...​	Rafa 37​	Rafa 1989​	Wawa 12​	Pete 2126​
??​	Rafa 7 (4-3)​	Rafa 0.44​	Rafa 12 (7-5)​	Rafa 0.75​	​	​	​	​

 

[Neptune]

Big3 bolded

Considering the USO competition in this thread and the USO achievements in the earlier thread, combining them provides any rational fan with a comprehensive understanding.

US Open Top 10 Ranking

Open Era until 2023, ranking is solely based on career ATP points, and only calculate R128-F matches. (I may miss out someone close to the bottom of top 10, if you point out I will check and update) 1 Jimmy Connors 18,720 2 Novak Djokovic 17,900 3 Roger Federer 16,630 4 Pete Sampras...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[Pheasant]

​	Top5 matches​	Top10 matches​	Ave oppo rank​	Ave oppo Elo​	Lost to oppo rank​	Lost to oppo Elo​
1​	Lendl 17 (8-9)​	Lendl 28 (18-10)​	Lendl 25​	Lendl 2036​	Bog 4​	Bog 2295​
2​	connors 17 (8-9)​	connors 26 (13-13)​	Bog 25​	Bog 2030​	Nole 5​	Nole 2280​
3​	Nole 16 (8-8)​	Nole 24 (16-8)​	Nole 26​	Nole 2027​	Lendl 5​	Lendl 2245​
4​	Agassi 15 (7-8)​	Agassi 23 (13-10)​	McEnroe 27​	connors 2027​	connors 6​	connors 2235​
5​	McEnroe 14 (8-6)​	Fed 22 (16-6)​	Pete 28​	McEnroe 2023​	McEnroe 7​	McEnroe 2206​
6​	Pete 13 (9-4)​	Pete 21 (16-5)​	Wawa 30​	Wawa 2006​	Agassi 8​	Fed 2185​
7​	Fed 13 (9-4)​	McEnroe 21 (15-6)​	connors 31​	Pete 2003​	Pete 9​	Agassi 2158​
8​	Wawa 10 (5-5)​	Wawa 15 (8-7)​	Fed 31​	Fed 2001​	Fed 10​	Rafa 2138​
9​	Bog 10 (4-6)​	Bog 15 (8-7)​	Agassi 31​	Agassi 1990​	Rafa 11​	Wawa 2129​
10​	...​	...​	Rafa 37​	Rafa 1989​	Wawa 12​	Pete 2126​
??​	Rafa 7 (4-3)​	Rafa 12 (7-5)​	​	​	​	​

This is fascinating. Borg's 15 matches against the top-10, considering that he was done playing slams by age 25 1/4, is absolutely mind-boggling. I did think about him too. He had insane competition.

 

[Neptune]

This is fascinating. Borg's 15 matches against the top-10, considering that he was done playing slams by age 25 1/4, is absolutely mind-boggling. I did think about him too. He had insane competition.

Yes, Borg entered USO the fewest times, almost half of Rafa's, yet has more top5/top10 matches than Rafa.
Borg, Lendl, and Nole truly stand out in this context, insane competition.

 

[itrium84]

This "lost to opponent's ELO" stat for Borg and Novak is mind boggling, near 2300.
Them two are kings of ELO stats overall.

 

[fedfan24]

Yes, Borg entered USO the fewest times, almost half of Rafa's, yet has more top5/top10 matches than Rafa.
Borg, Lendl, and Nole truly stand out in this context, insane competition.

Djokovic had some tough losses to peak Fedal but his last 3 wins were pretty mediocre or weak so it evens out.

 

[mike danny]

Might be controversial, but I think Fed on average had the tougher USO competition among the Big 3. Djokovic had the toughest individual win in 2011, but his last 3 titles were all pretty easy. Federer never quite had a freebie run at the USO.

Of course, Mac, Lendl and Pete had the tougher USO competition by far.

 

[Neptune]

Might be controversial, but I think Fed on average had the tougher USO competition among the Big 3. Djokovic had the toughest individual win in 2011, but his last 3 titles were all pretty easy. Federer never quite had a freebie run at the USO.

Of course, Mac, Lendl and Pete had the tougher USO competition by far.

Do you lack any scientific training?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Those 4 titles eating you up still I see, good
Oh yeah….. and 2-1 bestie

 

[mike danny]

Do you lack any scientific training?

No, not at all. I'm just looking at Djokodal's 7 USO wins and it's a pertinent conclusion.

 

[Pheasant]

Yes, Borg entered USO the fewest times, almost half of Rafa's, yet has more top5/top10 matches than Rafa.
Borg, Lendl, and Nole truly stand out in this context, insane competition.

Summing up those rankings that you listed:
Nole was 3,3,3,3,2,2
Nadal was 11+,11+,10,10,9,8
Fed was 7,5,8,8,8,6
Lendl was 1,1,1,1,2,3
Agassi was 4,4,9,9,6,7
Borg was 9,9,2,2,1,1(Borg is messed over on the first 2 numbers, due to being done at age 25 1/4).

I see that I may have overrated Agassi's competition there. But it was still good in 2 of the metrics.

 

[MichaelNadal]

No, not at all. I'm just looking at Djokodal's 7 USO wins and it's a pertinent conclusion.

8 now after Novak’s cupcake.

 

[Neptune]

Summing up those rankings that you listed:
Nole was 3,3,3,3,2,2
Nadal was 11+,11+,10,10,9,8
Fed was 7,5,8,8,8,6
Lendl was 1,1,1,1,2,3
Agassi was 4,4,9,9,6,7
Borg was 9,9,2,2,1,1(Borg is messed over on the first 2 numbers, due to being done at age 25 1/4).

I see that I may have overrated Agassi's competition there. But it was still good in 2 of the metrics.

Added per tourney numbers for the top5/10, also the last 4 columns Nole's DQ was not excluded (would be higher).

 

[Neptune]

Those 4 titles eating you up still I see, good
Oh yeah….. and 2-1 bestie

I show stats and you attack, typical Rafan?

 

[The Blond Blur]

RAFA had by far the weakest competition at the 2-1. He just had to beat Joker 2x being the only man to do so in 2 HC GS Fs and the Mad Lad who would go on to spank Peakovic going for the CYGS. Kanderson was actually RAFA’s toughest opponent in the meme fest that was the 2017 2-1 Open.

 

[Neptune]

Ended with 10 year 0 set on HC, order is finally restored after all is said and done.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

Doesn't look good for Djoko to have a losing record in the finals (out of 3 matches) vs a vulture.

 

[Razer]

5 Truths of the US Open

01. Anyone who speaks of ELOs in Tennis should not be taken seriously IMO, that person definitely is a troll.
02. Djokovic's plates are all a black mark on his resume, in the end 4=4 but 2>1, so I'm afraid Nadal is at least as good as Djokovic at the US Open. There is no argument to put Nadal below Novak and it is only recently that Nole earned the right be called an equal to Nadal in New York.
03. Sampras is the GOAT at the US Open..... Titles as a Teenager, in 20s and in 30s, really impressive. He did this without the Great Age Shift.
04. Federer > (Nadal & Djokovic) at the US Open
05. Djokovic unable to play in the wind is another black mark on the resume of the so called Hard Court GOAT.

 

[NoleFam]

This tournament is a great example of how luck of the draw really makes a huge difference. Lendl really underachieved. He should have around ~5 titles at least but he had very strong opposition. Lendl is clearly a better USO player than Nadal but has less titles. Borg played a lot of top players to say he only played for a short time. I guess it speaks to strength of his era. His 1-5 record against Connors/McEnroe did him in and is why he never could win it.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

5 Truths of the US Open

01. Anyone who speaks of ELOs in Tennis should not be taken seriously IMO, that person definitely is a troll.
02. Djokovic's plates are all a black mark on his resume, in the end 4=4 but 2>1, so I'm afraid Nadal is at least as good as Djokovic at the US Open. There is no argument to put Nadal below Novak and it is only recently that Nole earned the right be called an equal to Nadal in New York.
03. Sampras is the GOAT at the US Open..... Titles as a Teenager, in 20s and in 30s, really impressive. He did this without the Great Age Shift.
04. Federer > (Nadal & Djokovic) at the US Open
05. Djokovic unable to play in the wind is another black mark on the resume of the so called Hard Court GOAT.

I disagree with this. While I rate Ned's wins over Djoko at the USO very high, the additional finals that Djovak had made and the overall consistency puts him a bit over Nadal imo. Now you could call Nadal a more efficient player as he managed to win the same number of titles in less attempts/less finals, but I rate the overall results (vs field in particular) more.
Had Nadal defended at least one of his USO titles, I would've had him above Novak even with less finals because I value this achievement pretty high.

 

[Phoenix*]

5 Truths of the US Open

01. Anyone who speaks of ELOs in Tennis should not be taken seriously IMO, that person definitely is a troll.
02. Djokovic's plates are all a black mark on his resume, in the end 4=4 but 2>1, so I'm afraid Nadal is at least as good as Djokovic at the US Open. There is no argument to put Nadal below Novak and it is only recently that Nole earned the right be called an equal to Nadal in New York.
03. Sampras is the GOAT at the US Open..... Titles as a Teenager, in 20s and in 30s, really impressive. He did this without the Great Age Shift.
04. Federer > (Nadal & Djokovic) at the US Open
05. Djokovic unable to play in the wind is another black mark on the resume of the so called Hard Court GOAT.

Don't forget 6>1. Finals matter.

 

[_phantom]

Don't forget 6>1. Finals matter.

I have not seen Djo's trophy cabinet but am pretty sure the uso plates aren't on display there, but the olympics bronze medal is.

Third place in olympics > uso runners-up

 

[Phoenix*]

I have not seen Djo's trophy cabinet but am pretty sure the uso plates aren't on display there, but the olympics bronze medal is.

Third place in olympics > uso runners-up

ATP disagrees. USO Final is 1200 pts.

 

[_phantom]

ATP disagrees. USO Final is 1200 pts.

Because of ITF ATP tussle

 

[Third Serve]

Objective US Open rankings are still:

1. Pete
2. Fed
3. Connors
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
6. Djokovic
7. Nadal
8. Agassi
9. Edberg
10. Rafter

Djokovic can be argued to be over Lendl and Fed can be argued to be over Sampras but this is pretty much it.

 

[Phoenix*]

Objective US Open rankings are still:

1. Pete
2. Fed
3. Connors
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
6. Djokovic
7. Nadal
8. Agassi
9. Edberg
10. Rafter

Djokovic can be argued to be over Lendl and Fed can be argued to be over Sampras but this is pretty much it.

Not objective at all. Fed couldn't win a single USO in the strong era.

 

[Neptune]

Here is the USO ranking, pure ATP system, objective and transparent.

US Open Top 10 Ranking

Open Era until 2023, ranking is solely based on career ATP points, and only calculate R128-F matches. (I may miss out someone close to the bottom of top 10, if you point out I will check and update) 1 Jimmy Connors 18,720 2 Novak Djokovic 17,900 3 Roger Federer 16,630 4 Pete Sampras...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[fedfan24]

Do you lack any scientific training?

Sports isn’t measured by nonsense stat like ELO

 

[fedfan24]

Not objective at all. Fed couldn't win a single USO in the strong era.

He won 2 USO in the strong era (07-13) same as Nadal

Djokovic won 1!

 

[Phoenix*]

He won 2 USO in the strong era (07-13) same as Nadal

Djokovic won 1!

Strong era is 2011+, aka Djo's era.

 

[InsuranceMan]

They tryna forget about whatever the hell 2016 was lmao

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Strong era is 2011+, aka Djo's era.

Seeing as you regularly and affectionately refer to Nadal as 'pigeon', I can't see the issue with Federer's competition. Nice to have that finally settled. Ta.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Summing up those rankings that you listed:
Nole was 3,3,3,3,2,2
Nadal was 11+,11+,10,10,9,8
Fed was 7,5,8,8,8,6
Lendl was 1,1,1,1,2,3
Agassi was 4,4,9,9,6,7
Borg was 9,9,2,2,1,1(Borg is messed over on the first 2 numbers, due to being done at age 25 1/4).

I see that I may have overrated Agassi's competition there. But it was still good in 2 of the metrics.

Borg numbers might be wrong or I don't know maybe USO had different seedings

Look at this USOpen

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - US Open 1978

US Open 1978 at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Seed 12 is ranked 10. Why? Borg faced this guy in R16 and getting counted as a top 10 guy.

Fair to say the entire seeding and ranking before 1980s is a dispute. Connors was ranked number 1 in 1978 but how ?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Now let's not start overrating Borg based on faulty data. He is already rated very high at rg and Wimby as he should.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Another example of faulty data

Seed 6 but rank 5

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - US Open 1976

US Open 1976 at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

This seems to be an issue either with ranking/seeding then or data issue with uts. In any case borgs number are not representative of real life top 5 and top 10 wins.

 

[Pheasant]

Borg numbers might be wrong or I don't know maybe USO had different seedings

Look at this USOpen

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - US Open 1978

US Open 1978 at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Seed 12 is ranked 10. Why? Borg faced this guy in R16 and getting counted as a top 10 guy.

Fair to say the entire seeding and ranking before 1980s is a dispute. Connors was ranked number 1 in 1978 but how ?

Good catch. I pulled my stats of of TennisAbstract. It looks like Ultimate Tennis Statistics has more accurate records.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Good catch. I pulled my stats of of TennisAbstract. It looks like Ultimate Tennis Statistics has more accurate records.

Yes but I don't look for stats before 1980s anywhere. I don't know it just feels wrong.

1973 is just first year where ranking is even established. It must have taken them years to perfect the rankings. So it's not really that effective.

 

[Neptune]

Borg numbers might be wrong or I don't know maybe USO had different seedings

Look at this USOpen

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - US Open 1978

US Open 1978 at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Seed 12 is ranked 10. Why? Borg faced this guy in R16 and getting counted as a top 10 guy.

Fair to say the entire seeding and ranking before 1980s is a dispute. Connors was ranked number 1 in 1978 but how ?

I believe seeding was done before the last update (8/28/1978) of the ranking, Solomon ranked 12 at that time so seeded 12.
Then right before UO starts, Harold Solomon was rank 10 at last update of ranking (but seeding doesn't change anymore), so when UO78 actually starts, Solomon is No.10 in ranking, so it is fine.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Objective US Open rankings are still:

1. Pete
2. Fed
3. Connors
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl
6. Djokovic
7. Nadal
8. Agassi
9. Edberg
10. Rafter

Djokovic can be argued to be over Lendl and Fed can be argued to be over Sampras but this is pretty much it.

Lendl has had just as much competition as Nole. He lost more and it's shown in the results. There is no way Nole is behind Lendl now.

McEnroe is an outlier for me at least. He doesn't have stats like Nole and Ivan but he does have to face huge issues with racket changes. Nole is firmly in top 4 with an asterisk to McEnroe records (which is asterisk at Wimby as well, completely washed up).

I don't think Nole is done at the USOpen right now. He is one of the favorites for this year and I trust him to win 5th before retiring.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I believe seeding was done before the last update (8/28/1978) of the ranking, Solomon ranked 12 at that time so seeded 12.
Then right before UO starts, Harold Solomon was rank 10 at last update of ranking (but seeding doesn't change anymore), so when UO78 actually starts, Solomon is No.10 in ranking, so it is fine.

Your percentage are wrong. Lendl has negative win % vs top 5. Nole doesn't.

My bad it's the number of players faced per tournament.

 

[Razer]

I disagree with this. While I rate Ned's wins over Djoko at the USO very high, the additional finals that Djovak had made and the overall consistency puts him a bit over Nadal imo. Now you could call Nadal a more efficient player as he managed to win the same number of titles in less attempts/less finals, but I rate the overall results (vs field in particular) more.
Had Nadal defended at least one of his USO titles, I would've had him above Novak even with less finals because I value this achievement pretty high.

We only know how many people who climbed Mount Everest, we have never heard of how many people failed, no? In the end only the successful summit climb matters. I mean players all aim to win the trophy, nobody aims to get the plate. 5 RUs = 3 Titles in points but in reality it is only 3 titles that count, not the RUs.

Conventional logic says that reaching a final is better than going out in 3rd rround, it gives more points, more money too, but for the GOATs these losses in finals is actually a black mark compared to a 3rd round loss which can brushed off as bad form.

Example : If Federer had lost in 3rd round of wimbledon 2008 then nobody would have rated Nadal that high, but the fact that Roger lost to Nadal in the final did give Nadal a lot of credit at the cost of Federer.

So I dare say losing earlier is better than losing at a big stage when all eyes are on you, the big players are expected to bring their best to the main event. If Djokovic has reached more finals then it only means that he needed more finals to get those 4 Titles, bad conversion rate.... In the end only titles matter for the GOATs. For me Nadal and Djokovic are tied at US open, I dont think I should rate either of them above each other but if someone puts a gun to my head then I will have to look at the 2-1 H2H which I dont want to...

 

[nolefam_2024]

I disagree with this. While I rate Ned's wins over Djoko at the USO very high, the additional finals that Djovak had made and the overall consistency puts him a bit over Nadal imo. Now you could call Nadal a more efficient player as he managed to win the same number of titles in less attempts/less finals, but I rate the overall results (vs field in particular) more.
Had Nadal defended at least one of his USO titles, I would've had him above Novak even with less finals because I value this achievement pretty high.

Ignore this user. He will hijack every discussion to his baser instinct. He might be an ok member but not on this topic.

 

[fedfan24]

Strong era is 2011+, aka Djo's era.

Nah 2007-2013. 2014- is weak era followed by inflation era.

 

[Razer]

Djokovic can be argued to be over Lendl and Fed can be argued to be over Sampras but this is pretty much it.

Federer can never be argued over Sampras, to get "over" you need number 6, Federer failed that despite playing in an era where he enjoyed greater longevity. You can at best put Fed on par, there is no argument for being over just because he won 5 straight ones. Sampras has beaten better quality players to win his 5 titles than Federer, much better names. Also Sampras never choked at US Open, had it not been for his injury in 1994 then he would be having 6 titles.

 

[nolefam_2024]

While ELO can be used as a factor in big 3, I don't think it is that useful across eras.
Eg. During 90s, it was almost impossible to get very high win % due to surface dissimilarity. So on average there are very low elo ratings. The rankings though top 10 then is top 10 now. Even if higher ELO rated.

Across eras, I do think top 5 and top 10 are good indicators. So based on only first 4 indicators. We get.

Lendl 1,2,1,1
Nole 3,3,3,3 (MASSIVE ISSUE due to pandemic and default but he will be number 1 or 2 by end of his career easily)
Pete 6,47,4
McEnroe 5,5,7,5
These 4 had highest competition at USOpen. Among them, Pete beat everyone he faced. He is the best. Nole is on same level as McEnroe and Lendl is clearly below Nole.

Connors 2,6,2,7
Agassi 4,7,4,8
These 2 have had numbers skewed due to longetivity. But they have had too many bad losses. Both are Americans and heavily focused on USOpen series their entire career.
Connors got a GIMME USOpen in 1974. The draw is absolute joke. It might be worse than Nadal's 2017. But its countered by 4 very heavy wins.
While Agassi has 1 good USOpen run.


Federer problem is his competition. He has massively dominated in 2000s decade (2004 to 2010) but has not faced serious competition for almost all of it.

Nadal seems to be exactly opposite of Lendl and Nole. He is right man at the right time.

To rank these 6 by level I would go with

Pete
Rog
Jimmy
Nole
John
Ivan
Rafael

Far below, at the bottom Andre.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Pete has just ruled over competition, without showing mercy, at the USOpen.

There has never come a time where a player is so strong, he doesn't care about an OLD great, a current great who plays every year in the final and a future number 1 who is a few years elder. That's what Pete did. And there will never be.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

We only know how many people who climbed Mount Everest, we have never heard of how many people failed, no? In the end only the successful summit climb matters. I mean players all aim to win the trophy, nobody aims to get the plate. 5 RUs = 3 Titles in points but in reality it is only 3 titles that count, not the RUs.

Conventional logic says that reaching a final is better than going out in 3rd rround, it gives more points, more money too, but for the GOATs these losses in finals is actually a black mark compared to a 3rd round loss which can brushed off as bad form.

Example : If Federer had lost in 3rd round of wimbledon 2008 then nobody would have rated Nadal that high, but the fact that Roger lost to Nadal in the final did give Nadal a lot of credit at the cost of Federer.

So I dare say losing earlier is better than losing at a big stage when all eyes are on you, the big players are expected to bring their best to the main event. If Djokovic has reached more finals then it only means that he needed more finals to get those 4 finals, bad conversion rate.... In the end only titles matter for the GOATs. For me Nadal and Djokovic are tied at US open, I dont think I should rate either of them above each other but if someone puts a gun to my head then I will have to look at the 2-1 H2H which I dont want to...

All I disagreed with was your claim that there are no arguments to put Djoko above Nadal, where I believe you can find them (additional finals, for example). It's just a matter of preferences and what you value more. I also think it's a bit disappointing that neither of these guys have ever defended a title, even though they are four-time champions. For that very same reason, I tend to put McEnroe above them, he was a dominant champion.

 

[Phoenix*]

Seeing as you regularly and affectionately refer to Nadal as 'pigeon', I can't see the issue with Federer's competition. Nice to have that finally settled. Ta.

Federer dominated 2004-7 but was sidelined in Djo's era, therefore, him and his era are weaker.

 

[fedfan24]

Federer dominated 2004-7 but was sidelined in Djo's era, therefore, him and his era are weaker.

Djokovic failed to dominate the weaker 10s era, losing matches there to Nishikori, Murray and Wawrinka. He also failed to win a single title in the stronger 00s era, losing 3 consecutive times to Federer.

 

[NoleFam]

The hardest USO title wins since 1978 according to UTS:

1. McEnroe - 1980
2. Wawrinka - 2016
3. Del Potro - 2009
4. Lendl - 1985
5. McEnroe - 1979
6. Connors - 1978
7. Sampras - 1990
8. Djokovic - 2011
9. McEnroe - 1984
10. Murray - 2012

Interesting list but I have no idea how Wawrinka 2016 is that high. Beating Djokovic should not account for that much of a high rating when his next best opponents were Nishikori and 100+ ranked Del Potro. McEnroe 1979 is another one that is too high imo. A lot of these were very high level wins though.