Highest ranked players beat to win a Slam

Lew II

Professional
#1
These are the highest ranked players they beat to win each Slam, excluding them from the ranking, so they're not somehow penalized for having a high position:

FEDERER

no.1 x 5
no.2 x 3
no.3 x 2
no.4 x 4
no.5 x 6

geometric mean: 2.65

NADAL

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 2
no.5
no.6
no.27

geometric mean: 1.83

DJOKOVIC

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 3

geometric mean: 1.37
 
Last edited:
#5
Everyone knows Djokovic had a harder time being the 3rd banana behind Fedal! He wasn't gifted majors with 2nd rate players, always needing to go thru the best, but for a couple occasions; his 1st AO over Tsonga in '08! How anyone can count Murray against him with him actually being able to take down Nole occasionally makes no sense! He made final after final even if he didn't win! Fedal had it a lot easier with the likes of Roddick (Roger's b!tch) & Ferrer (Nadal's b!tch) in major finals while Nole actually had to overcome Fedal, Murray, Wawrinka, & Del PO! :sneaky::cautious::rolleyes:;)
Roddick and Ferrer would have become like Murray and Stan if Fedal were not stingy
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
#8
Roddick and Ferrer would have become like Murray and Stan if Fedal were not stingy
Ferrer just didn't have the game to challenge the top players! Whacking away from the baseline wasn't enough and he went down in flames again and again! Roddick was probably one of the more "joke time" #1's! He will be dismissed before the decade is out! :censored: :cautious: :oops: ;)
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#9
These are the highest ranked players they beat to win each Slam, excluding them from the ranking, so they're not somehow penalized for having a high position:

FEDERER

no.1 x 5
no.2 x 3
no.3 x 2
no.4 x 4
no.5 x 6

geometric mean: 2.65

NADAL

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 2
no.5
no.6
no.27

geometric mean: 1.83

DJOKOVIC

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 3

geometric mean: 1.37
Excellent thread.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
#10
Incoming Fed brigade. I still need to answer some of the troll posts in the Djokovic Weak Era thread lmao. The hypocrites...
This is hardly a weak era; Nole just makes them look that way! Winning his last 3 major finals without losing a set makes them all look bad I guess! :unsure: :cautious: :rolleyes: ;)
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
#11
Get away from here with your silly facts and figures.

As they hoovered up their phoney slams Nadal and Djokovic never had to look into the white hot eyes of the dread Baghdatis; suffer the knee-trembling thought of playing the mighty Gonzalez-a player who reached at least the quarter finals of every single slam (according to the main claim on his Wikipedia page)- or suffer the agonies of taking on the all-conquering, all-powerful Hewitt-scampering around like an extra from Neighbours trying to hit his mark.

These are the scars of greatest! Not the mere baubles of wins over all-time greats and double-slam winners.

Stats be dam*ed!!!
Well that was a weak period no matter what people say! For Fedal to make final after final in majors & Masters events proved it! They were good, but not that good! :unsure:
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
#15
Lol at the so called goat numbers:p
It’s ridiculous how he had easy competition and getting those slams before the other two came along.
The whole goat thing calling Federer that is a scam.
Nothing new really! Back in the day, I thought it a ridiculous and hilarious JOKE when Connors was put on a pedestal by defeating an ancient Rosewall at Wimbledon and the USO in straight sets back in '74! I was embarrassed for the old man, but lost sympathy when he hung on for several more years taking up a spot in draws he wasn't deserving of! :cautious: :rolleyes: ;)
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
#23
These are the highest ranked players they beat to win each Slam, excluding them from the ranking, so they're not somehow penalized for having a high position:

FEDERER

no.1 x 5
no.2 x 3
no.3 x 2
no.4 x 4
no.5 x 6

geometric mean: 2.65

NADAL

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 2
no.5
no.6
no.27

geometric mean: 1.83

DJOKOVIC

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 3

geometric mean: 1.37
So Federer won 10 GS titles without playing another Top 4 seed (considering his own high ranking, No. 4 and 5 in his list are No. 5 and 6 in actual ranking).

And Novak has beaten at least one Top 4 seed in every GS he won.

Wow. Are you sure you got all the numbers correct? Could you list year, highest ranked player beaten? Since i can see your post as an often cited post in the future.
 
#32
So Federer won 10 GS titles without playing another Top 4 seed (considering his own high ranking, No. 4 and 5 in his list are No. 5 and 6 in actual ranking).
You could look at it another way. In most of the majors Federer won the depth was comparatively stronger on those surfaces (hard and grass) so the top seeds didn't enjoy the advantages of weak fields on that surface like they did, for example, on clay for Nadal.
 
#33
These are the highest ranked players they beat to win each Slam, excluding them from the ranking, so they're not somehow penalized for having a high position:

FEDERER

no.1 x 5
no.2 x 3
no.3 x 2
no.4 x 4
no.5 x 6

geometric mean: 2.65

NADAL

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 2
no.5
no.6
no.27

geometric mean: 1.83

DJOKOVIC

no.1 x 10
no.2 x 2
no.3 x 3

geometric mean: 1.37
That is pretty crazy. How many times did Djokovic beat Fed or Nadal to win a Major when they were ranked #1-3?

This is a pretty simple metric, though. If the #1-3 seeds don't make the final, they weren't playing up to their ranking and players ranked lower were playing about their ranking. Remember that ranking includes results from a year ago. It would be far more difficult to assess the actual playing level in finals.
 

Lew II

Professional
#36
19 AO final Nadal, 18 USO final Delpo and legendary beast AO/RG final Muzz much tougher than 17 AO final Nadal, 09 RG semi Delpo, 06 USO Blake, 03 Wimby semi and 09 Wimby final Roddick. The rankings told me so, no?
Do you think smoking causes lung cancer?

Well, not all smokers suffer from lung cancer...
 
#48
I don't know how the Federistas can keep supporting the notion that Fraud had even passable competition while greedily piling up his undeserved slams. His only competition were weak era trash like Roddick, Bagdatis, Haas, Blake and Ljubicic who wouldn't even be in the top 20 now. Yeah he had EMBRYO Nadal, who didn't reach his prime till 2011, and he still got destroyed almost every time they met. ROFLMAO

Djokovic has had peak Nadal, peak Federer (don't kid yourselves that he wasn't, Fed fans, he even admitted he was at his best in 2015) peak Murray and peak Wawrinka. Not to mention he had Delpo, Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer thrown in for good measure. Real strong era competition. In spite of all that, he achieved the Nole slam, something that Fraud could never do, even with his cream puff competition.

Federer is a modern day Roy Emerson, building his legacy on one of the weakest eras of all time, and has duped the public into believing he's the best there's ever been, with help from Moet & Chandon, Rolex and his numerous other sponsors. Doesnt matter how many Stefan Edberg awards they buy for him, the facts are the facts.

@Lew II @Nadal_Django @ABCD Did I do it right?
 

Lew II

Professional
#49
Only players who trump Djokovic in this statistic, with a geometric mean of 1 (beating no.1 100% of times):

Wawrinka
Del Potro
Krajicek
Stich
Chang
Cash
Orantes

But they won respectively only 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 slams.
 
Last edited:
#50
I don't know how the Federistas can keep supporting the notion that Fraud had even passable competition while greedily piling up his undeserved slams. His only competition were weak era trash like Roddick, Bagdatis, Haas, Blake and Ljubicic who wouldn't even be in the top 20 now. Yeah he had EMBRYO Nadal, who didn't reach his prime till 2011, and he still got destroyed almost every time they met. ROFLMAO

Djokovic has had peak Nadal, peak Federer (don't kid yourselves that he wasn't, Fed fans, he even admitted he was at his best in 2015) peak Murray and peak Wawrinka. Not to mention he had Delpo, Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer thrown in for good measure. Real strong era competition. In spite of all that, he achieved the Nole slam, something that Fraud could never do, even with his cream puff competition.

Federer is a modern day Roy Emerson, building his legacy on one of the weakest eras of all time, and has duped the public into believing he's the best there's ever been, with help from Moet & Chandon, Rolex and his numerous other sponsors. Doesnt matter how many Stefan Edberg awards they buy for him, the facts are the facts.

@Lew II @Nadal_Django @ABCD Did I do it right?
 
Top