Fedalovic + Sampras: An Inspection into Average Rank of Opponents in Majors

[kandamrgam]

I was motivated by this thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=422886 to do a comparison. Basically this is about the average rank of opponents Fedalovic and Sampras had to face in their respective draws of Majors.

Please bear in mind this is clearly not a very accurate assessment of strength of competition, but I felt this is worth an exercise, and personally very interesting for me. Moreover I would like to hear from you what are the drawbacks of such an assessment.

I have done rigorous testing, so can be fairly sure the numbers are accurate. I'm listing all the gory details here (i.e. average rank of opponents across every more relevant Major) so that you guys can see which of those Majors of your favourite player come on top. I wrote a small script to dump the results. I think I will have to divide this into multiple posts given the length.

Few things to note:

1. I have considered all Majors of Fedalovic + Sampras in which they made at least to the SFs. The first column is Majors won by Fedalovic + Sampras, the second column lists Majors which was lost in the final and the third column lists Majors which players lost in the semi final. I included the semi finishes in my calculation because it is possible Fedalovic will play quality opponent from semis onwards.

2. This is clearly Fedalovic comparison. I have included Sampras just to see how much variation can 16 seeding system bring. I say this for a reason. When I compare Fedalovic, I have assigned equal seeding for all 3, i.e., seed 1. This is to ensure we don't end up unfairly judging the best player (here usually Federer) as having relatively weaker competition (as his opponents Nadal and Djokovic will be ranked lower). But I haven't used the same logic for Sampras. Sampras's two main opponents in Majors were Agassi (played 9 times) and Courier (played 8 times). I could have assigned Agassi and Courier seed 1 (just like I did for all 3 of Fedalovic) but Sampras has played them only 17 times. While Fedalovic has played the other two around 24 times. Someone could argue I should consider Becker in the list of Sampras's elite rivals and the arguments go on. I chose to avoid normalizing Sampras's competition. I don't know what it brings to table to include Sampras then, but just in case it is helpful for someone. If someone really sees a point I can easily bring a change in calculating average rank of Sampras's opponents in Majors and post it separately.

3. In green is Federer, in red is Nadal, in blue is Djokovic and in grey is Sampras. I did this so that its easy to distinguish who tops the lists often rather than having to go through the individual tournaments.

4. The list is sorted in the order of toughest Majors to least toughest (i.e. from best average ranking to worst average ranking).

5. I will call the "average draw ranking" as ADR from here onwards. Across each Major listed, you can find the ADR.

6. I haven't considered prime/peak years when seeding Fedalovic as no.1. In other words, Federer met a world no.1 Djokovic in AO 2007 while Djokovic met a world no.1 Federer in WC 2014. It would be too much work for me, furthermore, there will be enough arguments as to where to draw the line.

Here we go
----

I. ADR Based on All Opponents

--- [Wins Column] [Finals Column] [Semis Column]

01. [RG 2013 - 22] [RG 2014 - 22] [AO 2013 - 26]
02. [AO 2010 - 23] [WC 2007 - 23] [WC 2012 - 30]
03. [AO 2011 - 25] [AO 2009 - 31] [RG 1996 - 32]
04. [AO 2007 - 26] [WC 2013 - 35] [RG 2013 - 34]
05. [AO 2013 - 27] [UO 2007 - 35] [UO 2011 - 37]
06. [WC 2014 - 28] [UO 2001 - 35] [AO 2008 - 37]
07. [WC 2007 - 30] [UO 2012 - 36] [RG 2011 - 37]
08. [RG 2006 - 31] [UO 2010 - 36] [UO 2009 - 40]
09. [UO 1990 - 31] [WC 2014 - 37] [UO 2008 - 40]
10. [WC 2009 - 32] [RG 2011 - 40] [AO 2011 - 41]
11. [UO 2010 - 32] [RG 2008 - 41] [AO 1993 - 43]
12. [UO 2002 - 34] [WC 2011 - 41] [UO 2014 - 44]
13. [WC 1994 - 34] [RG 2007 - 46] [UO 2014 - 47]
14. [UO 2005 - 35] [RG 2006 - 52] [WC 2010 - 53]
15. [WC 2005 - 35] [UO 2011 - 52] [AO 2014 - 54]
16. [WC 2012 - 37] [UO 2013 - 53] [UO 2010 - 55]
17. [RG 2005 - 37] [AO 1995 - 60] [AO 2008 - 56]
18. [WC 2006 - 39] [UO 2000 - 64] [WC 1992 - 61]
19. [UO 1993 - 39] [AO 2012 - 72] [AO 2012 - 62]
20. [RG 2009 - 40] [WC 2008 - 73] [RG 2012 - 63]
21. [AO 2008 - 40] [RG 2012 - 73] [AO 2000 - 76]
22. [WC 2003 - 41] [WC 2006 - 85] [RG 2005 - 79]
23. [AO 2009 - 41] [UO 1992 - 96] [AO 2005 - 84]
24. [RG 2008 - 42] [AO 2014 - 101] [UO 2009 - 85]
25. [AO 2015 - 42] [UO 2009 - 214] [UO 1998 - 85]
26. [UO 1995 - 45] [RG 2008 - 89]
27. [WC 2008 - 46] [WC 2007 - 93]
28. [WC 1998 - 46] [UO 2008 - 94]
29. [WC 1997 - 46] [RG 2007 - 122]
30. [UO 2013 - 47]
31. [WC 2011 - 48]
32. [UO 1996 - 50]
33. [UO 2006 - 51]
34. [UO 2004 - 51]
35. [UO 2011 - 51]
36. [RG 2011 - 52]
37. [AO 1997 - 52]
38. [RG 2012 - 54]
39. [RG 2007 - 54]
40. [AO 1994 - 58]
41. [AO 2006 - 60]
42. [AO 2012 - 62]
43. [UO 2008 - 64]
44. [WC 2010 - 67]
45. [RG 2014 - 71]
46. [AO 2004 - 76]
47. [WC 1995 - 78]
48. [WC 2000 - 88]
49. [WC 1993 - 91]
50. [WC 2004 - 92]
51. [UO 2007 - 99]
52. [RG 2010 - 117]
53. [WC 1999 - 125]

ADR in Majors Won:
Federer - 49
Nadal - 51
Djokovic - 40
Sampras - 58

ADR in Majors Lost in Finals:
Federer - 67
Nadal - 62
Djokovic - 41
Sampras - 64

ADR in Majors Lost in Semis:
Federer - 53
Nadal - 63
Djokovic - 63
Sampras - 59

This shows Djokovic has had the toughest route in Majors. A case can be made for Federer to have got the second toughest. But this sort of averaging is not really sound. It can have some outliers seriously disturbing the average. For e.g., Nadal faced Kokkinakis ranked 570 in AO 2014 which made his ADR look very bad, while otherwise his draw has been reasonably good. Federer similarly faced 1370 ranked opponent in the first round in UO 2009 making his ADR an unprecedented low at 214. But those few Majors on top are really tight ones. Nadal's RG 2013, Federer's AO 2010, Djokovic's RG 2014 etc are really top notch in that regard. An average ranking of 22 is as low as it can get.

 

[kandamrgam]

II. ADR Ignoring First Round Opponent

--- [Wins Column] [Finals Column] [Semis Column]

01. [AO 2007 - 16] [RG 2014 - 18] [AO 2013 - 22]
02. [RG 2013 - 16] [WC 2007 - 21] [AO 2008 - 23]
03. [AO 2010 - 20] [UO 2009 - 22] [WC 2012 - 28]
04. [WC 2007 - 20] [UO 2007 - 25] [RG 2013 - 29]
05. [AO 2013 - 21] [WC 2014 - 29] [AO 2011 - 30]
06. [UO 2010 - 22] [AO 2009 - 30] [RG 2011 - 30]
07. [AO 2011 - 22] [UO 2012 - 30] [RG 1996 - 31]
08. [UO 1990 - 22] [UO 2001 - 32] [UO 2008 - 32]
09. [WC 2014 - 24] [WC 2011 - 33] [UO 2011 - 34]
10. [UO 2011 - 26] [UO 2010 - 34] [UO 2014 - 37]
11. [WC 2009 - 27] [RG 2006 - 35] [UO 2009 - 38]
12. [RG 2010 - 27] [WC 2013 - 35] [AO 2014 - 39]
13. [RG 2005 - 27] [RG 2011 - 40] [AO 2012 - 40]
14. [UO 2005 - 28] [WC 2008 - 40] [UO 2014 - 41]
15. [RG 2006 - 28] [RG 2008 - 41] [RG 2005 - 42]
16. [UO 2002 - 28] [RG 2007 - 42] [AO 2008 - 42]
17. [RG 2009 - 30] [UO 2013 - 43] [AO 1993 - 46]
18. [AO 2015 - 30] [UO 1992 - 43] [UO 2010 - 47]
19. [WC 1994 - 30] [UO 2011 - 45] [WC 2010 - 50]
20. [AO 1994 - 30] [AO 1995 - 55] [RG 2012 - 60]
21. [WC 2005 - 31] [AO 2012 - 56] [WC 1992 - 67]
22. [UO 1996 - 31] [UO 2000 - 64] [AO 2000 - 70]
23. [AO 1997 - 32] [RG 2012 - 70] [UO 1998 - 80]
24. [AO 2008 - 33] [WC 2006 - 76] [UO 2008 - 86]
25. [WC 2008 - 34] [AO 2014 - 108] [AO 2005 - 91]
26. [AO 2009 - 35] [UO 2009 - 92]
27. [WC 2012 - 36] [RG 2008 - 94]
28. [RG 2014 - 36] [WC 2007 - 103]
29. [RG 2008 - 36] [RG 2007 - 122]
30. [UO 1993 - 36]
31. [WC 2006 - 38]
32. [AO 2006 - 38]
33. [UO 2013 - 38]
34. [WC 2003 - 39]
35. [UO 2006 - 41]
36. [WC 1997 - 44]
37. [UO 1995 - 44]
38. [RG 2012 - 45]
39. [WC 2011 - 46]
40. [WC 1998 - 46]
41. [WC 2010 - 47]
42. [UO 2004 - 52]
43. [UO 2008 - 54]
44. [RG 2011 - 54]
45. [RG 2007 - 54]
46. [AO 2012 - 55]
47. [WC 2004 - 58]
48. [UO 2007 - 62]
49. [AO 2004 - 69]
50. [WC 1995 - 71]
51. [WC 1993 - 86]
52. [WC 2000 - 89]
53. [WC 1999 - 134]

ADR in Majors Won:
Federer - 39
Nadal - 36
Djokovic - 32
Sampras - 52

ADR in Majors Lost in Finals:
Federer - 35
Nadal - 57
Djokovic - 36
Sampras - 48

ADR in Majors Lost in Semis:
Federer - 43
Nadal - 55
Djokovic - 62
Sampras - 59

Federer and Djokovic are neck and neck imo here. But this stat, though better than the previous ADR, can still have annoying outliers since they always need not meet the top guys in first round. Better would be to calculate ADR ignoring the lowest ranked opponent altogether from the draw.

III. ADR Ignoring the Lowest Ranked Opponent in the Entire Draw

--- [Wins Column] [Finals Column] [Semis Column]

01. [AO 2007 - 16] [WC 2007 - 15] [RG 1996 - 18]
02. [RG 2013 - 16] [WC 2013 - 15] [AO 2013 - 22]
03. [AO 2011 - 16] [RG 2011 - 16] [UO 2009 - 22]
04. [RG 2006 - 17] [AO 2009 - 16] [AO 2008 - 23]
05. [AO 2010 - 18] [RG 2014 - 18] [RG 2013 - 24]
06. [UO 2004 - 19] [UO 2009 - 22] [UO 2008 - 25]
07. [WC 2007 - 20] [UO 2001 - 22] [UO 2011 - 26]
08. [AO 2013 - 21] [AO 2014 - 23] [WC 2012 - 26]
09. [RG 2011 - 22] [UO 2012 - 23] [WC 1992 - 26]
10. [UO 2010 - 22] [UO 2010 - 24] [AO 2011 - 30]
11. [UO 1990 - 22] [UO 2007 - 25] [RG 2011 - 30]
12. [WC 2005 - 24] [WC 2014 - 26] [WC 2007 - 30]
13. [RG 2008 - 24] [RG 2007 - 26] [AO 1993 - 30]
14. [WC 2014 - 24] [WC 2011 - 32] [UO 2014 - 35]
15. [RG 2007 - 26] [RG 2006 - 35] [UO 2014 - 36]
16. [UO 2011 - 26] [RG 2008 - 38] [AO 2014 - 39]
17. [UO 2002 - 26] [RG 2012 - 38] [AO 2012 - 40]
18. [WC 2009 - 27] [AO 1995 - 39] [RG 2005 - 42]
19. [RG 2010 - 27] [WC 2008 - 40] [AO 2008 - 42]
20. [RG 2005 - 27] [UO 2013 - 43] [UO 2010 - 44]
21. [UO 2005 - 28] [UO 1992 - 43] [WC 2010 - 44]
22. [WC 1994 - 28] [UO 2011 - 45] [UO 2009 - 47]
23. [WC 2011 - 29] [UO 2000 - 45] [UO 1998 - 50]
24. [UO 1993 - 29] [AO 2012 - 52] [RG 2012 - 54]
25. [WC 2012 - 30] [WC 2006 - 59] [RG 2008 - 54]
26. [RG 2009 - 30] [AO 2005 - 61]
27. [AO 2015 - 30] [UO 2008 - 61]
28. [AO 1994 - 30] [AO 2000 - 61]
29. [UO 1996 - 31] [RG 2007 - 86]
30. [UO 2013 - 32]
31. [RG 2012 - 32]
32. [AO 2009 - 32]
33. [AO 1997 - 32]
34. [WC 2006 - 33]
35. [AO 2008 - 33]
36. [WC 2008 - 34]
37. [WC 1998 - 34]
38. [WC 2003 - 36]
39. [RG 2014 - 36]
40. [AO 2006 - 38]
41. [UO 1995 - 38]
42. [WC 1997 - 40]
43. [UO 2006 - 41]
44. [AO 2012 - 43]
45. [WC 2010 - 47]
46. [WC 1999 - 47]
47. [UO 2008 - 51]
48. [WC 1993 - 51]
49. [WC 2004 - 58]
50. [UO 2007 - 62]
51. [AO 2004 - 62]
52. [WC 1995 - 62]
53. [WC 2000 - 63]

ADR in Majors Won:
Federer - 35
Nadal - 28
Djokovic - 28
Sampras - 38

ADR in Majors Lost in Finals:
Federer - 27
Nadal - 38
Djokovic - 27
Sampras - 37

ADR in Majors Lost in Semis:
Federer - 38
Nadal - 41
Djokovic - 40
Sampras - 37

Once again Djokovic has got the rawest deal. Federer can claim second. But one can argue for Fedalovic ranking of opponents of first three rounds hardly matters. An inspection from R16 onwards is next.

 

[kandamrgam]

IV. ADR from R16 Onwards

--- [Wins Column] [Finals Column] [Semis Column]

01. [RG 2006 - 5] [UO 2001 - 4] [AO 2014 - 5]
02. [AO 2007 - 6] [RG 2011 - 6] [UO 2010 - 7]
03. [AO 2011 - 6] [WC 2007 - 6] [UO 2008 - 8]
04. [RG 2013 - 8] [RG 2007 - 7] [AO 2013 - 9]
05. [AO 2013 - 8] [AO 2012 - 7] [UO 2009 - 9]
06. [UO 1990 - 8] [WC 2013 - 7] [AO 2008 - 10]
07. [UO 2004 - 9] [UO 2009 - 8] [UO 2009 - 10]
08. [RG 2012 - 9] [RG 2012 - 8] [RG 2013 - 11]
09. [AO 2010 - 10] [WC 2014 - 9] [WC 2007 - 12]
10. [AO 2009 - 10] [AO 2009 - 9] [UO 2014 - 15]
11. [WC 2007 - 11] [RG 2006 - 9] [UO 2011 - 16]
12. [RG 2008 - 11] [WC 2011 - 9] [AO 2012 - 17]
13. [RG 2007 - 11] [UO 2012 - 9] [WC 1992 - 19]
14. [UO 2011 - 11] [AO 1995 - 9] [UO 2014 - 20]
15. [UO 2002 - 11] [UO 1992 - 9] [WC 2012 - 21]
16. [RG 2011 - 12] [RG 2014 - 10] [RG 2011 - 22]
17. [UO 2010 - 12] [UO 2010 - 10] [AO 2011 - 24]
18. [AO 1994 - 12] [AO 2014 - 12] [UO 1998 - 24]
19. [UO 2013 - 14] [UO 2007 - 14] [AO 1993 - 29]
20. [UO 2005 - 15] [UO 2013 - 20] [AO 2008 - 30]
21. [WC 2005 - 15] [UO 2011 - 24] [UO 2008 - 32]
22. [AO 2015 - 15] [RG 2008 - 35] [RG 2008 - 33]
23. [WC 2014 - 15] [WC 2008 - 36] [RG 2005 - 35]
24. [AO 2008 - 16] [WC 2006 - 50] [RG 1996 - 38]
25. [UO 1996 - 16] [UO 2000 - 55] [RG 2012 - 40]
26. [UO 2007 - 18] [WC 2010 - 40]
27. [WC 1994 - 18] [AO 2000 - 40]
28. [WC 2006 - 21] [AO 2005 - 56]
29. [RG 2010 - 21] [RG 2007 - 59]
30. [RG 2005 - 21]
31. [WC 2009 - 22]
32. [WC 2004 - 22]
33. [WC 2010 - 22]
34. [RG 2014 - 24]
35. [UO 1993 - 24]
36. [RG 2009 - 26]
37. [UO 2006 - 26]
38. [UO 1995 - 26]
39. [AO 2004 - 27]
40. [WC 1999 - 27]
41. [WC 2012 - 28]
42. [WC 2003 - 30]
43. [AO 1997 - 30]
44. [AO 2006 - 31]
45. [WC 2008 - 31]
46. [WC 1997 - 31]
47. [UO 2008 - 40]
48. [WC 1995 - 44]
49. [WC 1998 - 47]
50. [AO 2012 - 48]
51. [WC 2011 - 53]
52. [WC 1993 - 88]
53. [WC 2000 - 98]

ADR in Majors Won:
Federer - 21
Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 22
Sampras - 34

ADR in Majors Lost in Finals:
Federer - 15
Nadal - 18
Djokovic - 11
Sampras - 19

ADR in Majors Lost in Semis:
Federer - 22
Nadal - 24
Djokovic - 23
Sampras - 30

Even inferring numbers is a bit tricky. When it comes to top-heaviness Fedalovic are very close imo. Nothing to separate.

V. Normalized ADR

To give proper weightage to opponents according to the round they are met, here I try to divide the ranking of the opponent by the round they are met. Thus I do something like R128/7 + R64/6 + .... F/1 and get the average. This I believe evaluates the proper merit of the opponent with respect to the round and reduces the spikes by less important opponents.

--- [Wins Column] [Finals Column] [Semis Column]

01. [AO 2010 - 5] [WC 2007 - 4] [AO 2013 - 5]
02. [RG 2013 - 5] [RG 2014 - 5] [RG 2013 - 6]
03. [AO 2013 - 5] [AO 2009 - 6] [WC 2012 - 6]
04. [AO 2011 - 5] [WC 2014 - 7] [UO 2011 - 7]
05. [WC 2007 - 6] [RG 2011 - 7] [AO 2008 - 7]
06. [AO 2007 - 6] [WC 2013 - 7] [UO 2009 - 7]
07. [UO 2010 - 6] [UO 2012 - 7] [UO 2008 - 7]
08. [RG 2006 - 6] [UO 2010 - 7] [RG 1996 - 7]
09. [WC 2014 - 6] [UO 2007 - 7] [AO 2011 - 8]
10. [UO 2005 - 7] [UO 2001 - 7] [UO 2014 - 8]
11. [WC 2005 - 7] [RG 2007 - 8] [RG 2011 - 8]
12. [UO 1990 - 7] [WC 2011 - 8] [AO 2014 - 9]
13. [WC 2012 - 8] [RG 2006 - 9] [UO 2014 - 10]
14. [AO 2009 - 8] [UO 2011 - 10] [UO 2010 - 10]
15. [RG 2008 - 8] [RG 2008 - 11] [AO 1993 - 10]
16. [AO 2015 - 8] [UO 2013 - 11] [AO 2012 - 11]
17. [UO 2002 - 8] [AO 1995 - 11] [AO 2008 - 12]
18. [WC 1994 - 8] [AO 2012 - 13] [WC 2010 - 12]
19. [WC 2009 - 9] [RG 2012 - 14] [WC 1992 - 12]
20. [UO 2013 - 9] [UO 2000 - 15] [RG 2012 - 13]
21. [UO 2011 - 9] [UO 1992 - 16] [RG 2005 - 15]
22. [WC 2006 - 10] [WC 2008 - 17] [UO 1998 - 15]
23. [UO 2004 - 10] [WC 2006 - 17] [UO 2009 - 16]
24. [RG 2011 - 10] [AO 2014 - 19] [AO 2000 - 16]
25. [RG 2007 - 10] [UO 2009 - 32] [AO 2005 - 17]
26. [UO 1996 - 10] [UO 2008 - 18]
27. [UO 1993 - 10] [RG 2008 - 18]
28. [RG 2009 - 11] [WC 2007 - 18]
29. [UO 2006 - 11] [RG 2007 - 25]
30. [RG 2012 - 11]
31. [RG 2005 - 11]
32. [UO 1995 - 11]
33. [AO 1994 - 11]
34. [AO 2008 - 12]
35. [RG 2014 - 13]
36. [WC 2010 - 13]
37. [WC 2008 - 13]
38. [AO 2012 - 13]
39. [WC 2011 - 13]
40. [WC 1998 - 13]
41. [AO 1997 - 13]
42. [UO 2008 - 14]
43. [WC 2003 - 14]
44. [WC 1997 - 15]
45. [UO 2007 - 17]
46. [WC 2004 - 17]
47. [WC 1995 - 17]
48. [AO 2006 - 18]
49. [RG 2010 - 20]
50. [WC 1993 - 20]
51. [AO 2004 - 24]
52. [WC 1999 - 26]
53. [WC 2000 - 31]

ADR in Majors Won:
Federer - 11
Nadal - 10
Djokovic - 9
Sampras - 14

ADR in Majors Lost in Finals:
Federer - 12
Nadal - 12
Djokovic - 8
Sampras - 12

ADR in Majors Lost in Semis:
Federer - 10
Nadal - 12
Djokovic - 12
Sampras - 12

Djokovic once again takes the cake.

----------------------------------------------------------------
You can have your inference. For me to conclude, my criterion will be solely dependent on ADR listed in III, IV and V which I find extra important.

My inference will be like, if ADR is something to go by then:

1. Djokovic undoubtedly has got the rawest deal in Majors.

2. Between Federer and Nadal it's very close. But Nadal fared better than Federer when the quality of opponents were higher - Nadal consistently faced better opponents in Majors he won, while Federer consistently faced better opponents in Majors he lost in semis and finals.

 

[Noelan]

OP great effort for making this analysis, thanks .

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Great work, so it shows that Djokovic had the toughest draws (example Wimbledon 2014) while between Nadal/Federer there is no relevant difference.

Djokovic is hated by the ITF :x

 

[tenisdecente]

Great work, so it shows that Djokovic had the toughest draws (example Wimbledon 2014) while between Nadal/Federer there is no relevant difference.

Djokovic is hated by the ITF :x

He has no fans, no?

 

[Bukmeikara]

The fact is that Roger almost always got Nole in his SF section while Nadal had it "easier" with Murray. The last two have 9 Slam matches and not a single final between them while the first share two 9 SF between them. How random is that and during most of their matches their ranks were 1 and 3.

Just checked, both Djokovic and Federer have met Murray just twise before a Final at the Slams and two of those were from last year when Andy ranking dropped.

 

[Bud]

Did you account for outliers when computing your average? Was the rank spread for each person at every tournament considered. One WC ranked really low will skew the results badly for the entire tournament.

A better comparison would be achieved by dropping anyone outside the top 100 for the average. That would be a more accurate comparison, IMO.

- - -

Just saw you addressed outliers in the last paragraph of the OP.

The fact is that Roger almost always got Nole in his SF section while Nadal had it "easier" with Murray. The last two have 9 Slam matches and not a single final between them while the first share two 9 SF between them. How random is that and during most of their matches their ranks were 1 and 3.

Just checked, both Djokovic and Federer have met Murray just twise before a Final at the Slams and two of those were from last year when Andy ranking dropped.

Federer had a better record against Djokovic for quite a long time. So, for him that may have been an easier draw.

 

[kandamrgam]

The fact is that Roger almost always got Nole in his SF section while Nadal had it "easier" with Murray. The last two have 9 Slam matches and not a single final between them while the first share two 9 SF between them. How random is that and during most of their matches their ranks were 1 and 3.

Just checked, both Djokovic and Federer have met Murray just twise before a Final at the Slams and two of those were from last year when Andy ranking dropped.

1. U can never argue about something that's deemed random. While it looks suspicious, it can't be guaranteed there's some sort of rigging. For eg, a nadal-djoker final in rg 2013 would have better for fans yet it didn't happen. Today nadal is up against Djoker in quarters. Tour officials could have done something about it.

2. Both of them played Djoker the same number of times. Fedovic happened 12 times, the same number as nadovic. Do you mean to say meeting djoker in finals instead of semis for federer improves his chances of winning Majors? I disagree. If you mean Federer could have had his winning pc slightly better if he faced Djoker one round higher then I agree.

I think your point is winning Majors is harder when u have to go through two atgs back to back. Surely that's the case if you have nole in semis and nadal in final. But how many such slams Federer had to deal with? I can only think of Rg 2011 where he beat Djoker in semis and then had nadal in final. Thanks for that, I will do an analysis in that regard later.

Otherwise, my point is, I repeat, if u have Djoker in semi and mug in final is only as good as having mug in semis and then atg in final.

 

[SpinToWin]

Awesome job kandamrigam and great to have a quality poster like you back here after a while

All been well on your end?

I'll check out the numbers you found in detail once I have enough time.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

An easy way to take care of the skew caused by very low ranked players would be to use a maximum value in your calculations. Don't use their ranking ie 1370, just have a maximum of 200 or whatever.

 

[chjtennis]

Good analysis, but no system is perfect. You have to factor in too many variables to make numerical formulae for this kind of analysis. For example, even if a player is ranked no. 5, he may not be the fifth best player on clay or grass. And so on.

 

[Russeljones]

Federer was seeded #1 in a GS 23 times, 18 of those being consecutive.

Djokovic has been #1 seed in a GS 12 times..

Nadal was seeded #1 on 9 such occasions..

 

[kOaMaster]

Do the semis include ALL semis reached (also those won)?

 

[Bukmeikara]

I think your point is winning Majors is harder when u have to go through two atgs back to back. Surely that's the case if you have nole in semis and nadal in final. But how many such slams Federer had to deal with? I can only think of Rg 2011 where he beat Djoker in semis and then had nadal in final. Thanks for that, I will do an analysis in that regard later.

Otherwise, my point is, I repeat, if u have Djoker in semi and mug in final is only as good as having mug in semis and then atg in final.

This are the matches when Fed-Nole meet in the SF/the other side of the draw pair:

Australia 08/Nadal-Tsonga
Us Open 08/Nadal-Murray
Us Open 09/Nadal-Del Potro
Us Open 10/Nadal - Youzhny
Australia 11/Murray - Ferrer
RG 11/Nadal - Murray
Us Open 11/Nadal-Murray
RG12/Nadal - Ferrer
Wimbledon12/Murray - Tsonga

Nadal-Djokovic 4 SF + QF
Murray - Djokovic 1 SF + 1 QF
Federer - Murray 1 SF + 1 QF

I am not saying that the draw is not random its just very strange in my eyes that Novak and Fed so often being at the same side of the draw compared to the other pairings. The list becomes even bigger with the failed meetings:

AO 09 - Djokovic lost to Roddick - next round Roger/final - Nadal
WM 09 - Djokovic lost to Haas - next round Roger/final - Roddick
AO 10 - Djokovic lost to Tsonga - next round Roger/final - Murray
WM 10 - Roger lost to Berdych - next round Novak/final - Nadal
WM 11 - Roger lost to Tsonga - next round Novak/final - Nadal

In 7/9 when Nole-Fed met in the SF, Nadal was into the second SF with some other guy(just three times with Murray)
From the failed meetings in 3/5 Nadal was waiting in the finals.

Bottom line for Nadal it was a lot more "easier" to defeat a random guy-Djokovic/Federer back to back. So his draws should be considered the most fortuned.

 

[PeteUSA]

Fedal and Djoker you can compare. But the Sampras era is a different animal.

Fedal and Djoker is the era of homogenization (surfaces, playing styles, balls). Sampras dominated a most diverse era. There were specialists for every surface. Some were ranked low but on their special surface they were a big threat for anybody.

When Nadal was not more a teen and Djoker was gluten free and lost his asthma Fed´s domination was gone.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I think I've just experienced the most user-unfriendly way to display statistics in the history of statistics.

 

[NatF]

Yes like the grass court specialist Vladimir Voltchkov ranked 237 with a 10-12 record on grass.

On these specialists...

In the first 4 rounds in 1994;

Sampras faced Jared Palmer, Richey Reneberg, Chuck Adams and Daniel Vacek. Only Reneberg could be considered a grass specialist with a winning 39-29 record on grass slightly better than his overall win/loss record. Everyone one else had a losing record.

Or in 1993 for the first 4 rounds the only player who he faced who had a winning record on grass was Byron Black. Morgan, Foster and Borwick all had losing records on grass and only Morgan had played more than 15 ATP matches on the surface.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

By every clear analysis we see Djokovic has had the toughest path of anyone in history.

First NatF's analysis showing 2011-2014 was clearly stronger than 2004-2007 (which he chooses to ignore now) in terms of the top 20 AND top 10.

Now this analysis indicating overall draws.

Those two clearly blow away any trash tier logic about Fed's supposed "depth compensation"

Additionally we have the actual logic component of seeing Djokovic having to play only Big 4 opponents in all of his slam finals except his first one while you have the luminary championship field of Roddick x4, Hewitt, Philipousses, 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzalez for Federer.

We also have clear evidence of Djokovic 11-15 showing as dominant or even more so form as 04-08 Fed in regards to slam QF, slam SF appearances, slam F appearances, WTF wins, Masters wins but significantly lower slam wins due to those stronger finals opponents.

Yet the Fraud error fans STILL deny his position as a weak era champion. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Bukmeikara]

Additionally we have the actual logic component of seeing Djokovic having to play only Big 4 opponents in all of his slam finals except his first one while you have the luminary championship field of Roddick x4, Hewitt, Philipousses, 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzalez for Federer.

We also have clear evidence of Djokovic 11-15 showing as dominant or even more so form as 04-08 Fed in regards to slam QF, slam SF appearances, slam F appearances, WTF wins, Masters wins but significantly lower slam wins due to those stronger finals opponents.

Yet the Fraud error fans STILL deny his position as a weak era champion. :

If he is a weak era champion why he is such a dominant number 2 in this strong era at 33-34 years of age
Ferrer in 2003-2009 has one top 10 finish, in 2010-2015 he would made them 6 this season
Haas at 35 was number 12 in 2013
Lopez/Benneteau at 33-34 reach a career high rankings
Roddickx4 has a record 5-4 against the most dominant player ever

 

[NatF]

Spicycurry took a break because he was becoming a spiteful bitter piece of **** and wanted to stop the descent. But the guy is too far gone. Can't take joy from the amazing run Djokovic is on and is instead spouting bile across the forum.

 

[kandamrgam]

Did you account for outliers when computing your average? Was the rank spread for each person at every tournament considered. One WC ranked really low will skew the results badly for the entire tournament.

A better comparison would be achieved by dropping anyone outside the top 100 for the average. That would be a more accurate comparison, IMO.

- - -

Just saw you addressed outliers in the last paragraph of the OP.



Federer had a better record against Djokovic for quite a long time. So, for him that may have been an easier draw.

Very wrong. Meeting Djoker in a Major is clearly harder for anyone than meeting Murray. Furthermore Federer owns Murray in majors while he is 6-6 against king Djoker.

 

[SpinToWin]

Spicycurry took a break because he was becoming a spiteful bitter piece of **** and wanted to stop the descent. But the guy is too far gone. Can't take joy from the amazing run Djokovic is on and is instead spouting bile across the forum.

Truly sad... Oh well... The ignore function gets a workout this way at least.

How somebody can be this obsessed and insecure about another person's (one who is uninvolved with him) success is beyond me.

 

[kandamrgam]

Awesome job kandamrigam and great to have a quality poster like you back here after a while

All been well on your end?

I'll check out the numbers you found in detail once I have enough time.

Was in another country, resigned job, in search of a new job now, marriage looming, all sorts of trouble basically. I used to check tt regularly via Tapatalk app, but engaging in lengthy discussions wasn't an option. And somewhere I lost interest when discussions here got a bit monotonic. The same old fights and trolls. To some extent the site sucks too.[emoji1]

Good to see u, I remember u r from Germany and believes no BH is better than Federer's just kidding [emoji13]

Will take me sometime to be fully active.

 

[kandamrgam]

An easy way to take care of the skew caused by very low ranked players would be to use a maximum value in your calculations. Don't use their ranking ie 1370, just have a maximum of 200 or whatever.

That is one option too, but do u think it gives extra information than in the ones I posted?

Moreover, how do u like it, are u saying we should assign an upper cutoff of 200 rank to all players ranked higher than 200? Or are u saying we should ignore players below 200? In any case 100 is more reasonable I guess. See this is the kind of arguments we have. Anyway I will try both of them. Thanks for the tip.

 

[NatF]

Was in another country, resigned job, in search of a new job now, marriage looming, all sorts of trouble basically. I used to check tt regularly via Tapatalk app, but engaging in lengthy discussions wasn't an option. And somewhere I lost interest when discussions here got a bit monotonic. The same old fights and trolls. To some extent the site sucks too.[emoji1]

Good to see u, I remember u r from Germany and believes no BH is better than Federer's just kidding [emoji13]

Will take me sometime to be fully active.

Congratulations on the marriage. It's good to see you posting again.

I finally got around to doing that breakdown of the win/loss records we spoke about months back. Have a look when you have a bit of time.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=525044

 

[kandamrgam]

Good analysis, but no system is perfect. You have to factor in too many variables to make numerical formulae for this kind of analysis. For example, even if a player is ranked no. 5, he may not be the fifth best player on clay or grass. And so on.

Absolutely.. We can only see so many different stats and see if there is a pattern. Easily my system is no perfect. But I could at least prove nadal doesn't get easier draws like certain trolls were trying to prove [emoji4]

Another problem is no.2 of x era not being as good as no.2 of y era.

 

[kandamrgam]

Do the semis include ALL semis reached (also those won)?

No, just the semis he lost. The one he won is included in his finals and wins column depending on how he performed next round.

 

[NatF]

Absolutely.. We can only see so many different stats and see if there is a pattern. Easily my system is no perfect. But I could at least prove nadal doesn't get easier draws like certain trolls were trying to prove [emoji4]

Another problem is no.2 of x era not being as good as no.2 of y era.

How much of a difference does it make if consider that Nadal was the #1 player on clay every year he won it, ranking would suggest Federer or Djokovic in some years was favored when in fact Nadal was the favorite.

 

[kandamrgam]

This are the matches when Fed-Nole meet in the SF/the other side of the draw pair:

Australia 08/Nadal-Tsonga
Us Open 08/Nadal-Murray
Us Open 09/Nadal-Del Potro
Us Open 10/Nadal - Youzhny
Australia 11/Murray - Ferrer
RG 11/Nadal - Murray
Us Open 11/Nadal-Murray
RG12/Nadal - Ferrer
Wimbledon12/Murray - Tsonga

Nadal-Djokovic 4 SF + QF
Murray - Djokovic 1 SF + 1 QF
Federer - Murray 1 SF + 1 QF

I am not saying that the draw is not random its just very strange in my eyes that Novak and Fed so often being at the same side of the draw compared to the other pairings. The list becomes even bigger with the failed meetings:

AO 09 - Djokovic lost to Roddick - next round Roger/final - Nadal
WM 09 - Djokovic lost to Haas - next round Roger/final - Roddick
AO 10 - Djokovic lost to Tsonga - next round Roger/final - Murray
WM 10 - Roger lost to Berdych - next round Novak/final - Nadal
WM 11 - Roger lost to Tsonga - next round Novak/final - Nadal

In 7/9 when Nole-Fed met in the SF, Nadal was into the second SF with some other guy(just three times with Murray)
From the failed meetings in 3/5 Nadal was waiting in the finals.

Bottom line for Nadal it was a lot more "easier" to defeat a random guy-Djokovic/Federer back to back. So his draws should be considered the most fortuned.

U have merely repeated ur point. I didn't question if fedovic happened more in the semis. But what is the implication? How does it prove Federer had it tougher? Its easier the same way for Federer to beat Djoker/Nadal - random guy back to back.

I hope u saw my point. Nadal met Djoker the same number of times. Kindly see my previous reply to u.

 

[kandamrgam]

I think I've just experienced the most user-unfriendly way to display statistics in the history of statistics.

Hey can u tell me what is confusing? Bbcode doesn't allow nice formatting for tables. If u have any input I can easily make changes as this is programmatically generated.

May be u don't see the stat the way I intended to be seen. Like u didn't get it?

 

[kandamrgam]

By every clear analysis we see Djokovic has had the toughest path of anyone in history.

First NatF's analysis showing 2011-2014 was clearly stronger than 2004-2007 (which he chooses to ignore now) in terms of the top 20 AND top 10.

Now this analysis indicating overall draws.

Those two clearly blow away any trash tier logic about Fed's supposed "depth compensation"

Additionally we have the actual logic component of seeing Djokovic having to play only Big 4 opponents in all of his slam finals except his first one while you have the luminary championship field of Roddick x4, Hewitt, Philipousses, 35 year old Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzalez for Federer.

We also have clear evidence of Djokovic 11-15 showing as dominant or even more so form as 04-08 Fed in regards to slam QF, slam SF appearances, slam F appearances, WTF wins, Masters wins but significantly lower slam wins due to those stronger finals opponents.

Yet the Fraud error fans STILL deny his position as a weak era champion. [emoji38][emoji38][emoji38][emoji38]

You might have a point, but u r being so bitter. What happened to u? Last time I read u were a respectful poster? [emoji15]

 

[kandamrgam]

How much of a difference does it make if consider that Nadal was the #1 player on clay every year he won it, ranking would suggest Federer or Djokovic in some years was favored when in fact Nadal was the favorite.

No difference at all in my stats. I have considered all 3 fedalovic to be rank 1, at the same time, yes!

Congratulations on the marriage. It's good to see you posting again.

I finally got around to doing that breakdown of the win/loss records we spoke about months back. Have a look when you have a bit of time.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=525044

I have seen that way back! Was surprised to see u take my name ! Impressive work man. Give me time to give a detailed look.

 

[kandamrgam]

Great work, so it shows that Djokovic had the toughest draws (example Wimbledon 2014) while between Nadal/Federer there is no relevant difference.

Djokovic is hated by the ITF :x

Haha! Yeah, but Djoker had one of the easiest draws I have seen in my analysis. Nothing was as weak as rg 2007 for him. He met 4 players out of 100 ranking, and only one top 50 opponent! He lost in semis to the first top 50 opponent he played which was Rafa [emoji4]

Similarly sampras's WC 2000 is equally weak. The highest ranked player he met was 21st ranked rafter. Can't remember when this happened last. May be bartoli's Wimbledon win?

 

[SpinToWin]

Was in another country, resigned job, in search of a new job now, marriage looming, all sorts of trouble basically. I used to check tt regularly via Tapatalk app, but engaging in lengthy discussions wasn't an option. And somewhere I lost interest when discussions here got a bit monotonic. The same old fights and trolls. To some extent the site sucks too.[emoji1]

Good to see u, I remember u r from Germany and believes no BH is better than Federer's just kidding [emoji13]

Will take me sometime to be fully active.

Damn, you've been busy!

Glad to hear all is well and I hope you can settle in sometime soon (so that we may start some more inriguing debates in this mostly stale environment )

Oh and of course Federer's backhand slice is the greatest!! ^^

 

[NatF]

No difference at all in my stats. I have considered all 3 fedalovic to be rank 1, at the same time, yes!

I have seen that way back! Was surprised to see u take my name ! Impressive work man. Give me time to give a detailed look.

OK, good to know. That seems to be the best way to do it.

Awesome. I look forward to seeing your thoughts. I'm working on another thread right now, showing the dominance ratio of defeated quarter finalists on wards in slams for The Trivalry.

So keep an eye out for that as well

I'll try and give you some thoughts on this thread as well.

 

[kandamrgam]

OK, good to know. That seems to be the best way to do it.

Awesome. I look forward to seeing your thoughts. I'm working on another thread right now, showing the dominance ratio of defeated quarter finalists on wards in slams for The Trivalry.

So keep an eye out for that as well

I'll try and give you some thoughts on this thread as well.

Sure .............