Higher ranking in Big3 h2h

[Lew II]

DJOKOVIC vs NADAL
Nadal was ranked higher in 34 matches
Djokovic was ranked higher in 19 matches

DJOKOVIC vs FEDERER
Djokovic was ranked higher in 25 matches
Federer was ranked higher in 22 matches

FEDERER VS NADAL
Federer was ranked higher in 23 matches
Nadal was ranked higher in 15 matches

Overall:

Nadal was ranked higher in 49 matches out of 91 (53.8%)
Federer was ranked higher in 45 matches out of 85 (52.9%)
Djokovic was ranked higher in 44 matches out of 100 (44%)

 

[tennisaddict]

Rinse and repeat .. Same argument : punish Federer for being supremely consistent even at 38

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic needs 14 more matches with a higher ranking to even out the difference (57 out of 114 = 50%).

 

[Lew II]

Rinse and repeat .. Same argument : punish Federer for being supremely consistent even at 38

Actually since he turned 30 he was ranked higher than Djokovic or Nadal in only 6 matches, and ranked lower in 8 matches before he turned 30.

 

[Towny]

So what you're saying is Djokovic was higher ranked than Federer in more of their matches than the other way round? Got it

 

[Lew II]

So what you're saying is Djokovic was higher ranked than Federer in more of their matches than the other way round? Got it

Just by 1.

 

[Sysyphus]

wat about geometric mean brah

 

[Towny]

Just by 1.

Yes but it illustrates the point. By your logic, Djokovic has had a slight advantage over Federer. Not too dissimilar in proportion to their actual H2H 25-22. Literally just the outcome of a single match. Hardly fits the narrative that Fed is hopeless against Novak and can't keep up with him

 

[Lew II]

Yes but it illustrates the point. By your logic, Djokovic has had a slight advantage over Federer. Not too dissimilar in proportion to their actual H2H 25-22. Literally just the outcome of a single match. Hardly fits the narrative that Fed is hopeless against Novak and can't keep up with him

Lost 16 of the 24 biggest matches, though.

 

[Towny]

Lost 16 of the 24 biggest matches, though.

How do you define 'big matches'? Is it slam SF and F with masters F and YEC F?

 

[tennisaddict]

Actually since he turned 30 he was ranked higher than Djokovic or Nadal in only 6 matches, and ranked lower in 8 matches before he turned 30.

Doesn’t matter . If Fed had retired at 31 or his ranking was in mid 40’s and never got to meeting Novak in finals , then this thread becomes irrelevant

Is Stakhovsky extending his lead over Wilander ??

 

[Lew II]

Hiw do you define 'big matches'? Is it slam SF and F with masters F and YEC F?

Yes.

I have to say that Djokovic in these matches was ranked higher 14 times, to Federer's 10.

 

[Towny]

Yes.

I have to say that Djokovic in these matches was ranked higher 14 times, to Federer's 10.

Yes I'd just counted that up too. Seems you were a little faster than me! I know we've disagreed a little on so called Big matches in the past so I'm not going to get into that here. Even so, this shows that Djokovic has had the advantage in their rivalry overall. As such, Federer really hasn't done badly given the circumstances. I would say it's been fairly even but you may disagree. Either way, totally different from the Fedal rivalry in which Nadal has been highly successful going up against a prime Fed

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So Federer was ranked the highest the most at over 54%? Then he must be the GOAT, because to be ranked the highest the most means you were the best over the field the longest.

 

[Lew II]

So Federer was ranked the highest the most at over 54%? Then he must be the GOAT, because to be ranked the highest the most means you were the best over the field the longest.

No it's about the h2h really.

If he retired in 2011, he would be ranked higher in 90% of the h2h, but Djokovic and Nadal would have a greater career than him against the field.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

No it's just about the h2h really.

If he retired in 2011, today he would be ranked higher in 90% of the h2h, but Djokovic and Nadal would be as great as them against the fieldm

Yes, but those stats also show that he was the greater number one. They are not just showing the H2H. That means overall against the entire field of tennis players Federer was the greatest.

IF don't count, lets focus on the actual numbers you have posted.

 

[Sysyphus]

So Federer was ranked the highest the most at over 54%? Then he must be the GOAT, because to be ranked the highest the most means you were the best over the field the longest.

 

[Lew II]

Yes, but those stats also show that he was the greater number one. They are not just showing the H2H. That means overall against the entire field of tennis players Federer was the greatest.

IF don't count, lets focus on the actual numbers you have posted.

No it doesn't mean that.

It is true, since he was no.1 the longest ever, but it's not expressed in the stat I posted.

 

[alexio]

Doesn’t matter . If Fed had retired at 31 or his ranking was in mid 40’s and never got to meeting Novak in finals , then this thread becomes irrelevant

 

[Deleted member 77403]

No it doesn't mean that.

It is true, since he was no.1 the longest ever, but it's not expressed in the stat I posted.

Actually it does I'm afraid, and you have kind of expressed it in the stat, by saying Federer was the higher ranked player for the majority of his matches against the Big Three, meaning at that point he was greater than his rivals at the time of that match, since the numbers don't lie.

 

[RaulRamirez]

The biggest number I take out of this is 100, and to a lesser extent, 91 and 85. That's a ton of meetings among the "Goats", and while pundits can always factor in their own context, all the matches count.

I simply don't buy into many theories or excuses (by any of the camps here) that any of the three greats had it significantly tougher than any of the others. Most of the age-related considerations balance out over time - especially with this many matches played head2head!! As far as relative rankings during their matchups, that could be read in one of at least two ways.

 

[ABCD]

Actually it does I'm afraid, and you have kind of expressed it in the stat, by saying Federer was the higher ranked player for the majority of his matches against the Big Three, meaning at that point he was greater than his rivals at the time of that match, since the numbers don't lie.

I know that you are joking. There are 2 elements here 1) ranking and 2) temporal distribution of matches (so it is not about ranking alone). If you look time where their careers overlap Djokovic was more time at No1. than Federer.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I know that you are joking. There are 2 elements here 1) ranking and 2) temporal distribution of matches (so it is not about ranking alone). If you look time where their careers overlap Djokovic was more time at No1. than Federer.

Do the stats themselves show this? I mean looking at the numbers LewII posted, can you see everything you just stated? Isn't what your saying only apparent when you dig deeper than just looking at the numbers?

The only thing I see in the stats is that Federer was the higher ranked player for the majority of his matches against Nadalovic over the course of their careers. I don't dispute your analysis, but you are now going deeper than just the stats.

 

[tennisaddict]

No it's about the h2h really.

If he retired in 2011, he would be ranked higher in 90% of the h2h, but Djokovic and Nadal would have a greater career than him against the field.

Is Stakhovsky better than Djokovic ??

 

[travlerajm]

Lew getting owned by Hitman... Isn’t there some rule of life that it’s never a good idea to get in an argument with a hitman?

 

[ollinger]

I don't dispute your analysis

Did I miss something? He posted analysis? I thought it was just pointless data again.

 

[Lew II]

@Hitman

Why was Nadal ranked higher than Djokovic in 34 matches out of 53?

Is he 2 times more consistent than Djokovic?

 

[ollinger]

Why was Nadal ranked higher than Djokovic in 34 matches out of 53?

Is he 2 times more consistent than Djokovic?

Ummm, lets's see, because rankings are not very indicative of very much at all because they don't take into account tournaments missed due to injury, don't take into account tournaments missed because players are increasingly selective about which and how many tournaments they play, are based on completely arbitrary rating point values assigned to various tournaments, etc. Dwelling too much on rankings is an intellectually bankrupt exercise.

 

[RaulRamirez]

@Hitman

Why was Nadal ranked higher than Djokovic in 34 matches out of 53?

Is he 2 times more consistent than Djokovic?

That is a somewhat surprising number, given only one year difference in age, and the fact that Novak has been #1 for more weeks/years.

 

[King No1e]

DJOKOVIC vs NADAL
Nadal was ranked higher in 34 matches
Djokovic was ranked higher in 19 matches

DJOKOVIC vs FEDERER
Djokovic was ranked higher in 24 matches
Federer was ranked higher in 23 matches

FEDERER VS NADAL
Federer was ranked higher in 23 matches
Nadal was ranked higher in 15 matches

Overall:

Federer was ranked higher in 46 matches out of 85 (54.1%)
Nadal was ranked higher in 49 matches out of 91 (53.8%)
Djokovic was ranked higher in 43 matches out of 100 (43%)

It's incredibly ironic that Federer vs Nadal has Federer up 23-15 in this higher rank comparison

 

[RaulRamirez]

It's incredibly ironic that Federer vs Nadal has Federer up 23-15 in this higher rank comparison

Good catch.

 

[tennisaddict]

Deleted

 

[Deleted member 77403]

@Hitman

Why was Nadal ranked higher than Djokovic in 34 matches out of 53?

Is he 2 times more consistent than Djokovic?

It is indeed an interesting question. It is clear that overall, Djokovic has been less accomplished against the entire field than Fedal, due to an overall 43% where he was ranked higher than them during their meetings, and thus was more better against the field. I am going by your own numbers, which show that overall Federer was ranked higher over the course of his career when he met the other members of the big three, thus, overall, he was the greater player against the field. The numbers show this.

Djokovic is the better player in the direct match ups, but this isn't boxing. There is no point in beating Federer in back to to back slam finals, and then go 0-2 against Wawrinka in slam finals.

 

[RaulRamirez]

...

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It's incredibly ironic that Federer vs Nadal has Federer up 23-15 in this higher rank comparison

I actually laughed at that one.

 

[alexio]

So Federer was ranked the highest the most at over 54%? Then he must be the GOAT, because to be ranked the highest the most means you were the best over the field the longest.

why did you say that, it's so obvious

 

[Deleted member 77403]

why did you say that, it's so obvious

Seems the obvious is not so obvious to some.

 

[alexio]

which show that overall Federer was ranked higher over the course of his career when he met the other members of the big three, thus, overall, he was the greater player against the field. The numbers show this.

greatest player against the field doesn't make you the greatest player, this thread is not about how is the greatest number 1 in rankings

 

[Deleted member 77403]

greatest player against the field doesn't make you the greatest player, this thread is not about how is the greatest number 1 in rankings

I think you will see it is, hence the point of mentioning who had the better ranking in the match ups wouldn't be a criteria for this thread.

 

[Luka888]

This is so irrelevant . Silly thread, lol. Focus people, focus .

 

[Dekalog12]

Can you check Federer-Djokovic one again. Federer was higher ranked in all but 17 of their 19 matches till end of 2010 (apart from Canada 2010 and Shanghai 2010).
Since 2011 he was higher ranked in 5 out of 28 matches (AO 2011, Dubai 2011, IW 2011, Cinci 2012 and Cinci 2018)

So it should be 25-22 to Djokovic unless i am makeing any mistakes.

 

[EloQuent]

ooooh numbers. I like numbers.

17
46
12
999

numbers

 

[alexio]

ooooh numbers. I like numbers.

17
46
12
999

numbers

mathematics the "queen of the sciences"

 

[EloQuent]

mathematics the "queen of the sciences"

this had nothing to do with mathematics

 

[alexio]

this had nothing to do with mathematics

ok as you wish

 

[tenisdecente]

Stakhovsky is GOAT. Sorry to tell you that fella

 

[NoleFam]

I think this is a cool stat actually but it kind of explains their careers if you really look at it. Federer was first and extremely dominant so Nadal was always chasing him at first. Then Djokovic was 3rd and both of the others were dominant and he was chasing Nadal and Federer. The last one is always going to be chasing the other two in front before he can turn it around.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Yes but it illustrates the point. By your logic, Djokovic has had a slight advantage over Federer. Not too dissimilar in proportion to their actual H2H 25-22. Literally just the outcome of a single match. Hardly fits the narrative that Fed is hopeless against Novak and can't keep up with him

The fact that Federer has played 8,000+ points against Djokovic (while having played on every surface) and still has won more points than he’s lost says everything. It’s very, very close DESPITE Federer having played Djokovic so many times after turning 30.

 

[Lew II]

Can you check Federer-Djokovic one again. Federer was higher ranked in all but 17 of their 19 matches till end of 2010 (apart from Canada 2010 and Shanghai 2010).
Since 2011 he was higher ranked in 5 out of 28 matches (AO 2011, Dubai 2011, IW 2011, Cinci 2012 and Cinci 2018)

So it should be 25-22 to Djokovic unless i am makeing any mistakes.

You're right. I think I forgot about Canada 2010.

 

[KINGROGER]

So the age disadvantage Federer had was only against Djokovic but not against the field

You're right. I think I forgot about Canada 2010.

Yes... the margins are fine between ATG players.