Open era rankings by titles won per surface

D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Agree! Djokovic was too hot to handle. Federer still managed to stop him at Cincinnati though and RR of the ATP finals with a HTH of 2-4 during that period. Not too bad imo when Djoker was going bonkers.

Too hot to handle and too cold to hold.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Hahahaha! I remember this scene.

Legendary scene, I did that once to a friend on a plane. We were watching Commando the day before, and laughed about doing that scene, then made a bet on who gets to pull that off on the other first, of course the victim then had to play along and have the blanket put on him. He never knew what hit him, and I never let him live it down and that was ten years ago. :D
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Eh....why is it damning if Nadal has a preffered surface?

Hardcourts dominate the tour because they are relatively cheap and easy to maintain, compared to Clay and Grass.

That's it. No special reason. Having hardcourts as your preferred surface doesn't make you a better tennis player. It just means you lucked out that the ATP found the cheapest surface to lay down on courts across the year. It's pure dumb luck and economics, and nothing else.


What I said was, if you had to pick a weaker surface to have, generally, you would pick clay over HC because most of the big tournaments on tour are on HC. That's why it's less damning for Federer to have clay as his worst surface. Because it's not as prevalent on tour as HC.

No argument made about the inherent merits of HC as a surface. Separate topic and basically irrelevant to the thread, and to the first post you made.



If anything, it's a testament to Nadal's gifts as a player that he grew up on clay courts and it became his preferred surface, yet still managed to win several huge titles against all-time greats on his least favorite surface. 2-1 to Nadal over Djokovic at the US Open and deafeating Prime Federer on Grass at Wimbledon says it all. Neither Djokovic nor Federer could take out a prime Nadal on the clay of Roland Garros.

That's nice, but it's got little to do with your initial post. You were talking about title rankings on each surface and how it relates to surface variety. I explained how you weren't looking into the issue very deeply. Until you respond to that, it's pointless to go off on these rabbit trails. No offence meant.

(Oh and Federer/Djokovic grew up on clay too).
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Legendary scene, I did that once to a friend on a plane. We were watching Commando the day before, and laughed about doing that scene, then made a bet on who gets to pull that off on the other first, of course the victim then had to play along and have the blanket put on him. He never knew what hit him, and I never let him live it down and that was ten years ago. :D

Nice. I bet the other passengers were like what the hell. Haha. :D This was always one of my favorite Schwarzenegger scenes.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I hope we get Rambo III but I guess I shouldn't be too greedy. ;)

Well with Agassi and Steps on each side, you know he is ready and all of us are ready for Rambo III ;)

tumblr_mjs1wfvAsl1rvdee4o1_500.gif
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Just to make sure, kindly count how many people are above Nadal in the grass list and tell me what that number is. Hint, it's a lot more than 10.


LOL just noticed that.

Yeah, Rafa is actually 1st in clay titles, 14th in HC titles and 20th in grass titles.

Federer is 1st in HC titles, 1st in grass and 26th on clay.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Read this line very slowly to yourself a few times, and then let me know what is wrong with it. Take your time.

Wonder if VB offers remedial grade school.

VB are nice, fun and decent fans

latest


However

It's the Bullzillions you need to look out for. ;)

gremlins-2-the-new-batch-still.jpg
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
LOL just noticed that.

Yeah, Rafa is actually 1st in clay titles, 14th in HC titles and 20th in grass titles.

Federer is 1st in HC titles, 1st in grass and 26th on clay.
and of course there's a million clay court titles for the specialists to vulture hence Federer's low position on that list, while the same is not true for grass (and Nadal still did vulture 1 of his 4 grass titles lmao).
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Looking at the list of titles on clay, it comes to mind that because of Nadal the clay GOAT, other greats achieved relatively little on that surface. Djokovic only won 13 titles while Federer only(!) won 11. Compare that to the number of slam titles won during 2004-present. Just shows when you have 2-4 players with the caliber of all time greats, it becomes so hard to win slams for the rest of the field.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Repeat after me....Federer WILL NEVER be in the top 10 Open Era for Clay Titles won.

Nadal will be in the top 10 Open era for Hard, Clay and Grass titles won. Probably the same for Djokovic.

No wonder Rafa was pimping Djokovic so hard this week over Fed.

LOOLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!:):)

Fed needs to work on that Open Era surface distribution dawg.
Nadal isn’t top 10 lol
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
By the same token, Federer had several seasons on tour when he was winning titles and slams before Nadal even became a factor as the uber-dominant clay maestro. Federer couldn't take advantadge of that 3 year period before Nadal really arrived, even though his first Masters title was actually on Clay in Hamburg in 2002. You can't fully use Nadal as an excuse, when Fed had almost 3 years without Nadal to rack up Clay titles.
Lol what? Fed’s clay prime was 2005-2011, during this time he literally had 1 year where Nadal failed to make RG final.

Also blocked at Rome (should’ve won), 3 MC finals and 1 Hamburg. If 05-07 peak Fed had the same clay field Djokovic had in 15-16 for example I’m positive he’d have completed the set.

Also many of those clay title wins were from vultured Mickey Mouse titles. Fed actually has 1 RG, 4 Hamburg 2 Madrid and 4 additional RG finals so they’re more quality than quantity.
 
Last edited:

money_ball

Rookie
Connors data is incorrect:
12 + 39 + 9 + 49 = 109, not 12 + 40 + 11 + 48 = 111

... also McEnroe and Lendl (77 & 94)

111 titles for jimbo ?. I thought atp claimed 109 ?..or are the atp stat boffins getting it wrong again LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

All this data is based off of the data scraped from the ATP website (which is full of errors). You can check out the data yourself from the CSV files in the following GitHub repo:
As for Jimmy Connors, here is the list of all the singles tournaments that he won, and the data is from the ATP website:

# | Tourney date | Tourney name | Location | Environment | Surface | Tourney Draw | Singles winner name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 1972-01-21 | Roanoke | Roanoke | Outdoor | Hard | 4 | Jimmy Connors
2 | 1972-06-24 | London / Queen's Club | London | Outdoor | Grass | 64 | Jimmy Connors
3 | 1972-07-23 | Columbus | Columbus | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
4 | 1972-07-31 | Cincinnati | Cincinnati | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
5 | 1972-09-25 | Albany | Albany | Outdoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
6 | 1973-01-16 | Jacksonville | Jacksonville | Indoor | Hard | 16 | Jimmy Connors
7 | 1973-01-03 | Baltimore | Baltimore | Indoor | Hard | 16 | Jimmy Connors
8 | 1973-01-19 | Roanoke | Roanoke | Outdoor | Hard | 16 | Jimmy Connors
9 | 1973-02-07 | Salt Lake City | Salt Lake City | Indoor | Hard | 24 | Jimmy Connors
10 | 1973-02-18 | Salisbury | Salisbury | Indoor | Hard | 64 | Jimmy Connors
11 | 1973-02-26 | Hampton | Hampton | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
12 | 1973-03-04 | Paramus | Paramus | Indoor | Hard | 16 | Jimmy Connors
13 | 1973-07-16 | Boston | Boston | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
14 | 1973-08-05 | Columbus | Columbus | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
15 | 1973-09-17 | Los Angeles | Los Angeles | Outdoor | Hard | 64 | Jimmy Connors
16 | 1973-10-01 | Quebec | Quebec | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
17 | 1973-11-27 | Johannesburg | Johannesburg | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
18 | 1973-12-26 | Australian Open | Melbourne | Outdoor | Grass | 64 | Jimmy Connors
19 | 1974-01-20 | Roanoke | Roanoke | Indoor | Hard | 16 | Jimmy Connors
20 | 1974-02-10 | Little Rock | Little Rock | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
21 | 1974-02-17 | Birmingham | Birmingham | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
22 | 1974-02-24 | Salisbury | Salisbury | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
23 | 1974-03-10 | Hampton | Hampton | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
24 | 1974-03-18 | Salt Lake City | Salt Lake City | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
25 | 1974-03-27 | Tempe | Tempe | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
26 | 1974-06-03 | Manchester | Manchester | Outdoor | Grass | 16 | Jimmy Connors
27 | 1974-06-24 | Wimbledon | London | Outdoor | Grass | 128 | Jimmy Connors
28 | 1974-08-05 | Indianapolis | Indianapolis | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
29 | 1974-08-28 | US Open | New York | Outdoor | Grass | 128 | Jimmy Connors
30 | 1974-09-17 | Los Angeles | Los Angeles | Outdoor | Hard | 64 | Jimmy Connors
31 | 1974-11-16 | London | London | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
32 | 1974-11-24 | Johannesburg | Johannesburg | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
33 | 1975-01-18 | Bahamas | Nassau | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
34 | 1975-01-20 | Birmingham | Birmingham | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
35 | 1975-02-10 | Salisbury | Salisbury | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
36 | 1975-02-17 | Boca Raton | Boca Raton | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
37 | 1975-03-11 | Hampton | Hampton | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
38 | 1975-04-14 | Denver WCT | Denver | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
39 | 1975-08-04 | North Conway | North Conway | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
40 | 1975-09-21 | Bermuda | Bermuda | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
41 | 1975-10-05 | Maui | Maui | Indoor | Grass | 32 | Jimmy Connors
42 | 1976-01-20 | Birmingham | Birmingham | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
43 | 1976-01-26 | Philadelphia WCT | Philadelphia | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
44 | 1976-03-10 | Hampton | Hampton | Indoor | Carpet | 16 | Jimmy Connors
45 | 1976-03-22 | Palm Springs | Palm Springs | Outdoor | Hard | 64 | Jimmy Connors
46 | 1976-04-20 | Denver WCT | Denver | Indoor | Carpet | 16 | Jimmy Connors
47 | 1976-05-10 | Las Vegas | Las Vegas | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
48 | 1976-06-15 | Nottingham | Nottingham | Outdoor | Grass | 64 | Jimmy Connors
49 | 1976-07-26 | Washington | Washington | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
50 | 1976-08-08 | North Conway | North Conway | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
51 | 1976-08-09 | Indianapolis | Indianapolis | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
52 | 1976-09-01 | US Open | New York | Outdoor | Clay | 128 | Jimmy Connors
53 | 1976-11-01 | Cologne | Cologne | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
54 | 1976-11-15 | Wembley | Wembley | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
55 | 1977-01-12 | Birmingham WCT | Birmingham | Indoor | Carpet | 16 | Jimmy Connors
56 | 1978-02-20 | Denver | Denver | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
57 | 1977-03-14 | St. Louis WCT | St. Louis | Indoor | Carpet | 16 | Jimmy Connors
58 | 1977-04-25 | Las Vegas | Las Vegas | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
59 | 1977-05-10 | Dallas WCT | Dallas | Indoor | Carpet | 8 | Jimmy Connors
60 | 1977-10-03 | Maui | Maui | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
61 | 1977-10-17 | Sydney Indoor | Sydney | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
62 | 1977-11-14 | WCT Challenge Cup | Las Vegas | Indoor | Carpet | 8 | Jimmy Connors
63 | 1978-01-04 | Masters | | Indoor | Carpet | 8 | Jimmy Connors
64 | 1978-01-23 | Philadelphia WCT | Philadelphia | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
65 | 1978-02-27 | Memphis | Memphis | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
66 | 1978-04-03 | Rotterdam WTC | Rotterdam | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
67 | 1978-06-18 | Birmingham | Birmingham | Outdoor | Grass | 64 | Jimmy Connors
68 | 1978-07-23 | Washington | Washington | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
69 | 1978-08-07 | Indianapolis | Indianapolis | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
70 | 1978-08-14 | Stowe | Stowe | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
71 | 1978-08-29 | US Open | New York | Outdoor | Hard | 128 | Jimmy Connors
72 | 1978-10-22 | Sydney Indoor | Sydney | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
73 | 1979-01-15 | Birmingham | Birmingham | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
74 | 1979-01-22 | Philadelphia | Philadelphia | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
75 | 1979-02-20 | Dorado Beach | Dorado Beach, United States | Outdoor | Hard | 6 | Jimmy Connors
76 | 1979-02-26 | Memphis | Memphis | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
77 | 1979-04-09 | Tulsa | Tulsa | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
78 | 1979-08-06 | Indianapolis | Indianapolis | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
79 | 1979-08-13 | Stowe | Stowe | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
80 | 1979-11-05 | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
81 | 1980-01-14 | Birmingham | Birmingham | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
82 | 1980-01-21 | Philadelphia | Philadelphia | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
83 | 1980-04-28 | Dallas WCT | Dallas | Indoor | Carpet | 8 | Jimmy Connors
84 | 1980-07-27 | North Conway | North Conway | Outdoor | Clay | 64 | Jimmy Connors
85 | 1980-10-13 | Republic Of China | Canton | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
86 | 1980-10-27 | Tokyo Indoor | Tokyo | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
87 | 1981-02-16 | La Quinta | La Quinta | Outdoor | Hard | 64 | Jimmy Connors
88 | 1981-03-09 | Brussels | Brussels | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
89 | 1981-03-16 | Rotterdam | Rotterdam | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
90 | 1981-11-09 | Wembley | Wembley | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
91 | 1982-02-22 | Monterrey | Monterrey | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
92 | 1982-04-12 | Los Angeles | Los Angeles | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
93 | 1982-04-25 | Las Vegas | Las Vegas | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
94 | 1982-06-07 | London / Queen's Club | London | Outdoor | Grass | 64 | Jimmy Connors
95 | 1982-06-21 | Wimbledon | London | Outdoor | Grass | 128 | Jimmy Connors
96 | 1982-08-03 | Columbus | Columbus | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
97 | 1982-08-31 | US Open | New York | Outdoor | Hard | 128 | Jimmy Connors
98 | 1983-02-14 | Memphis | Memphis | Indoor | Carpet | 64 | Jimmy Connors
99 | 1983-04-24 | Las Vegas | Las Vegas | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
100 | 1983-06-06 | London / Queen's Club | London | Outdoor | Grass | 64 | Jimmy Connors
101 | 1983-08-30 | US Open | New York | Outdoor | Hard | 128 | Jimmy Connors
102 | 1984-02-06 | Memphis | Memphis | Indoor | Carpet | 48 | Jimmy Connors
103 | 1984-02-13 | La Quinta | La Quinta | Outdoor | Hard | 56 | Jimmy Connors
104 | 1984-03-26 | Boca West | Boca West | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
105 | 1984-09-10 | Los Angeles | Los Angeles | Outdoor | Hard | 48 | Jimmy Connors
106 | 1984-10-15 | Tokyo Indoor | Tokyo | Indoor | Carpet | 32 | Jimmy Connors
107 | 1985-05-20 | World Team Cup | Dusseldorf | Outdoor | Clay | 32 | Jimmy Connors
108 | 1988-07-18 | Washington | Washington | Outdoor | Hard | 56 | Jimmy Connors
109 | 1988-10-10 | Toulouse | Toulouse | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
110 | 1989-10-09 | Toulouse | Toulouse | Indoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
111 | 1989-10-16 | Tel Aviv | Tel Aviv | Outdoor | Hard | 32 | Jimmy Connors
 

pame

Hall of Fame
@money_ball. Just a small observation: normally when you do a listing and you have a tie, the next ranked person takes the position number that would occur had the people in the tie been on different numbers, i.e. after 2,2,2, where 3 people are tied on 2, the next person would be no. 5, not no. 3 -- at least that's how I've always seen it done
 

money_ball

Rookie
@pame Good point. The "ranks" are from a simple formula in my spreadsheet. I'm not clever enough to figure out the spreadsheet formula for your improved ranking system, and I'm way too lazy to do them by hand. In fact, I don't do any of this stuff by hand. I just query my database, and pull up the stats, and copy and paste them for you guys.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
This makes interesting reading. Nadal, often criticised as a surface specialist, is in the top 10 Open era for Clay Titles and Grass titles won. And only 2 titles away from being in the top 10 for Hardcourt wins.

Djokovic is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass.He's 3 titles from getting in the top 10 for Clay.

Federer is in the top 10 for Hardcourt and top 10 for Grass. He's 6 titles away from making it in the top 10 for Clay.

Djokovic and Nadal are almost mirror images of each other. Extremely dominant on one surface (Hard for Djoker, Clay for Nadal), very strong on each others favorite surface, and dead even on grass as top 10 open era grass courters.

Federer is dominant on Hard and Grass, but will never get in the top 10 for clay (unless he decides to spend a season or two in South America to vulture some clay court titles).

Nadal is pretty much guaranteed to end up top 10 in all 3 relevant surfaces (Carpet is an obsolete surface for top guys today). Djokovic should end up there as well (though his form and Nadal's clay dominance, and Thiem's increasing danger on clay may make it harder than it seems). And Federer will only be top 10 for Hard and Grass.

There is an argument that Nadal is the most well rounded by surface, then Djokovic (who is as much a "specialist" as Nadal, just not quite as succesful), then Federer.

Does this make Rafa the most versatile player of the open era, you think?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
By the same token, Federer had several seasons on tour when he was winning titles and slams before Nadal even became a factor as the uber-dominant clay maestro. Federer couldn't take advantadge of that 3 year period before Nadal really arrived, even though his first Masters title was actually on Clay in Hamburg in 2002. You can't fully use Nadal as an excuse, when Fed had almost 3 years without Nadal to rack up Clay titles.

So no excuse for Nadal on HC after 2005 right? After all he did win multiple masters on that surface that year...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It's a pretty specious argument. Clay courts make up about 32% of the tour and 35% of all big tournaments, yet Nadal has won 70.6% of his titles on it. Only 30% of his tournament wins have been on the two surfaces that make up 65% of the tour and 71% of Tier 1 tournaments.

Federer has won 65 of his 95 titles on HC (68%) but HC constitutes about 55% of the tour and 65% of the big (majors, WTF, masters) tournaments.

It's more damning if your worst surface happens to be the one most prominently featured on tour, rather than clay.

Also, it's only in the past 12 or so years that HC's have made up over 50% of the tour. Before that, many of the fast court events were split between carpet and HC (from 1972-1998, carpet made up around 15-20% of the tour every year). Being top 10 in most HC titles should basically be a prerequisite to be an ATG in this era, since there are way, waaaaay more HC events than ever before. If the surface composition was the same from the 70's onward, you can bet players like Nastase, Newcombe, Smith, Courier and Laver (all of whom are right there with him in title count) would be ahead of Nadal in HC title count. Even with all this, Nadal is only 11th. 11th most titles won on the tours dominant surface, which makes up a higher % of all tournaments in his day than it ever has.


Surface breakdown found here:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/surfaceTimeline


(also, one would think Federer being FIRST in BOTH HC and Grass, by some distance, would supersede Nadal barely cracking the top 10 on grass and being outside the top 10 on HC. Guess not).
Nah, man Nadal is more versatile than Federer :D

Said no one ever, but the VB.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Repeat after me....Federer WILL NEVER be in the top 10 Open Era for Clay Titles won.

Nadal will be in the top 10 Open era for Hard, Clay and Grass titles won. Probably the same for Djokovic.

No wonder Rafa was pimping Djokovic so hard this week over Fed.

LOOLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!:):)

Fed needs to work on that Open Era surface distribution dawg.

So, let's go surface by surface, as you seem to have some comprehension issues...

* Clay:
Current #1: Nadal, with 53 titles (likely to remain that way for a very long time)
Cap for top 10: 17 titles
Djokovic is #17 with 13 titles. Chances he reaches top 10: very possible, depending on how strong he comes back (needs to win 4).
Federer is #26 with 11 titles. Chances he reaches top 10: nil (needs to win 6, which may not seem like such a big ask, but he's not playing on the surface anymore, so...).
(Which, btw, validates what I and others have been saying for ages, ie that Nadal has had *no* top-level claycourter to contend with since 2015. Zero, nada, zilch, none. The only "true" claycourters on the list are... Ferrer, Almagro, and Robredo, who are about as far removed as can be from ATG's, on this surface or overall. In fact, during his best years on the surface, Nadal's main competition was an everything-bar-clay specialist (yes, Fed would have made top 10 on clay easily without Nadal, but no way he makes top 5, he would never have chased the needed tournaments). So, weakest clay era ever? (And I really do mean "ever", btw--in the Open Era, it's so obvious that it's not even a question.)

* HC:
Current #1: Federer, with 65 titles (likely to remain that way for a very long time, except if Djokovic goes on an absolute tear)
Cap for top 10: 21 titles
Djokovic is #2 with 51 titles (trails Federer by 14), will definitely end in top 10 whatever happens.
Nadal is #14 with 18 titles. Chances he reaches top 10: possible, but not a given by far (needs to win 3, and DelPo is only 2 behind, could end up in front of him). Plus, any half-decent ATG in the future will fly past him anyway.

Grass:
Current #1: Federer, with 17 titles (likely to remain that way for a very long time)
Cap for top 10: 7 titles
Nadal and Djokovic are both tied at #20 with 4 titles. Chances they reach top 10: basically nil for Nadal, may just be possible for Djokovic depending on how strong he comes back (still pretty remote, though).

So, they current standings are:
Federer: 1, 1, and 26 (HC, grass, clay)
Nadal: 1, 14, and 20 (clay, HC, grass)
Djokovic: 2, 17, and 20 (HC, clay, grass)

So, to quote you once again: "Nadal will be in the top 10 Open era for Hard, Clay and Grass titles won. Probably the same for Djokovic." Sure. And Ferrer is the clay GOAT... :rolleyes:

VB: dealing in alternate facts since 2005. No wonder Trumps loves our Rafa... o_O
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
So, let's go surface by surface, as you seem to have some comprehension issues...

* Clay:
Current #1: Nadal, with 53 titles (likely to remain that way for a very long time)
Cap for top 10: 17 titles
Djokovic is #17 with 13 titles. Chances he reaches top 10: very possible, depending on how strong he comes back (needs to win 4).
Federer is #26 with 11 titles. Chances he reaches top 10: nil (needs to win 6, which may not seem like such a big ask, but he's not playing on the surface anymore, so...).
(Which, btw, validates what I and others have been saying for ages, ie that Nadal has had *no* top-level claycourter to contend with since 2015. Zero, nada, zilch, none. The only "true" claycourters on the list are... Ferrer, Almagro, and Robredo, who are about as far removed as can be from ATG's, on this surface or overall. In fact, during his best years on the surface, Nadal's main competition was an everything-bar-clay specialist (yes, Fed would have made top 10 on clay easily without Nadal, but no way he makes top 5, he would never have chased the needed tournaments). So, weakest clay era ever? (And I really do mean "ever", btw--in the Open Era, it's so obvious that it's not even a question.)

* HC:
Current #1: Federer, with 65 titles (likely to remain that way for a very long time, except if Djokovic goes on an absolute tear)
Cap for top 10: 21 titles
Djokovic is #2 with 51 titles (trails Federer by 14), will definitely end in top 10 whatever happens.
Nadal is #14 with 18 titles. Chances he reaches top 10: possible, but not a given by far (needs to win 3, and DelPo is only 2 behind, could end up in front of him). Plus, any half-decent ATG in the future will fly past him anyway.

Grass:
Current #1: Federer, with 17 titles (likely to remain that way for a very long time)
Cap for top 10: 7 titles
Nadal and Djokovic are both tied at #20 with 4 titles. Chances they reach top 10: basically nil for Nadal, may just be possible for Djokovic depending on how strong he comes back (still pretty remote, though).

So, they current standings are:
Federer: 1, 1, and 26 (HC, grass, clay)
Nadal: 1, 14, and 20 (clay, HC, grass)
Djokovic: 2, 17, and 20 (HC, clay, grass)

So, to quote you once again: "Nadal will be in the top 10 Open era for Hard, Clay and Grass titles won. Probably the same for Djokovic." Sure. And Ferrer is the clay GOAT... :rolleyes:

VB: dealing in alternate facts since 2005. No wonder Trumps loves our Rafa... o_O

I can comprehend just fine. You are willing to act like Fed isn't even top 20 in clay titles won, just to deny Nadal some shine for being more well rounded in open era title distribution. Tragic.

Statistical ties are a thing. Get over it.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
OP: although it's not a surface per se, having an indoor category would be nice, too (this one would be dominated by the oldies too, as there are less indoor tournaments nowadays than there were before, so expect JMac, Connors and Lendl at the top of the pile again).
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
I can comprehend just fine. You are willing to act like Fed isn't even top 20 in clay titles won, just to deny Nadal some shine for being more well rounded in open era title distribution. Tragic.

Statistical ties are a thing. Get over it.

You obviously can't. Which is funny, as my 5-year old can. When two guys are tied for first place, the one who comes just after them finishes third, that's the way it is. Sorry to burst your bubble, I can see you were having the time of your life--but it's probably better if we tell you the truth now, it will prevent you from embarrassing yourself next time you talk tennis at a garden party--sorry, a clay party. :)
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
You obviously can't. Which is funny, as my 5-year old can. When two guys are tied for first place, the one who comes just after them finishes third, that's the way it is. Sorry to burst your bubble, I can see you were having the time of your life--but it's probably better if we tell you the truth now, it will prevent you from embarrassing yourself next time you talk tennis at a garden party--sorry, a clay party. :)

Errr...There have been situations where there has been a tie for first place at the Olympics. Two athletes get a Gold Medal. The next placed finisher is considered 2nd, and awarded the Silver Medal. And whomever came 4th gets a bronze medal (so officially considered 3rd). They don't skip over Silver and award the 3rd place finisher a Bronze Medal. The guy who comes after the tie is considered 2nd place.

But whatever methodology works to keep Nadal from looking too good works just as well I guess. LOL!

Comprehend that, compadre. Sorry to burst your bubble.:)
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I can comprehend just fine. You are willing to act like Fed isn't even top 20 in clay titles won, just to deny Nadal some shine for being more well rounded in open era title distribution. Tragic.

Statistical ties are a thing. Get over it.
You can't count then.

For example if 4 guys are tied for 1st place, the next guy starts at 5. Not "2nd".
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
You can't count then.

For example if 4 guys are tied for 1st place, the next guy starts at 5. Not "2nd".

Read my post about the Olympics again. I stand by their methodology. 4 guys tie for 1st place, they all win Gold, and the 5th place guy wins silver, so would be 2nd. You rarely get a situation with that many ties because things can be measured to 10ths of a second or millimetres, but that's how it would play out.

If it's a good enough tie methodology for the Olympics, one would hope it's good enough for the devoted fanbase of Roger Federer on TT Warehouse.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
How about % of tournaments won per entry by surface

Nadal is most definitely not the most alround if the 4
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Read my post about the Olympics again. I stand by their methodology. 4 guys tie for 1st place, they all win Gold, and the 5th place guy wins silver, so would be 2nd. You rarely get a situation with that many ties because things can be measured to 10ths of a second or millimetres, but that's how it would play out.

If it's a good enough tie methodology for the Olympics, one would hope it's good enough for the devoted fanbase of Roger Federer on TT Warehouse.
Rafa still less versatile than Fed who has 10+ titles on the main 3 surfaces, including both indoor and outdoor HC too.

Not really bothered about quantity of clay titles. Quality counts more here. Fed's 6 masters, countless finals, 5 RG finals + title >>>>>>> mickey mouse titles.
 
Last edited:

Dilexson

Hall of Fame
Read my post about the Olympics again. I stand by their methodology. 4 guys tie for 1st place, they all win Gold, and the 5th place guy wins silver, so would be 2nd. You rarely get a situation with that many ties because things can be measured to 10ths of a second or millimetres, but that's how it would play out.

If it's a good enough tie methodology for the Olympics, one would hope it's good enough for the devoted fanbase of Roger Federer on TT Warehouse.
Really dude?
LMAO!!
 

money_ball

Rookie
@pame: I figured out a spreadsheet formula to fix the rankings according to the more accurate rankings method you pointed out, and I have edited the results in the first post of this thread.

I didn't realize this thread was going to be a Federer vs Nadal debate, so to summarize the rankings:

Code:
Player          Clay rank   Hard rank   Grass rank
------          ---------   ---------   ----------
Roger Federer   26          1           1
Rafael Nadal    1           14          20
Novak Djokovic  17          2           20
Andy Murray     101         6           4

So in short, only Federer and Murray are in the Top 10 for 2 categories (Hard and Grass), whereas Djokovic and Nadal are only in the Top 10 for 1 category. (Though Nadal has a chance to break into the Top 10 for hard courts if he wins 3 more hard court tournaments, tying him for 10th with Michael Chang, Andy Roddick, and Lleyton Hewiit.)

In terms of labeling these players "specialists", taking a look also at their titles breakdown by surface:

Code:
Player          Clay titles     Hard titles     Grass titles
------          -----------     -----------     ------------
Roger Federer   11              65              17
Rafael Nadal    53              18              4
Novak Djokovic  13              51              4
Andy Murray     3               33              8

One would say the following:
  • Federer "specializes" in hard and grass courts
  • Nadal "specializes" in clay courts
  • Djokovic "specializes" in hard courts
  • Murray "specializes" in hard and grass courts
More accurate is to use the word "prefers to play" or "is most successful in" rather than "specializes".
 
Last edited:

pame

Hall of Fame
The original (non-edited) methodology in your first post was correct. It followed Olympic Standard tie rules, as I've pointed out. Bowing to pressure from the Federer Mafia to change it so Nadal drops a few places in some categories is frankly pathetic. And spineless.

It's not "more accurate". It's just more suitable to Federistas, and shows how easily statistics can be manipulated. A tie formula used by the Olympics isn't good enough now, if Federer fans don't like the results.

No wonder this place is called Federer Warehouse.
The Olympic methodology, as you call it, is used to award 3 levels of medals.

For normal ranking purposes:
"Standard competition ranking ("1224" ranking)
In competition ranking, items that compare equal receive the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers. The number of ranking numbers that are left out in this gap is one less than the number of items that compared equal. Equivalently, each item's ranking number is 1 plus the number of items ranked above it. This ranking strategy is frequently adopted for competitions, as it means that if two (or more) competitors tie for a position in the ranking, the position of all those ranked below them is unaffected (i.e., a competitor only comes second if exactly one person scores better than them, third if exactly two people score better than them, fourth if exactly three people score better than them, etc.).

Thus if A ranks ahead of B and C (which compare equal) which are both ranked ahead of D, then A gets ranking number 1 ("first"), B gets ranking number 2 ("joint second"), C also gets ranking number 2 ("joint second") and D gets ranking number 4 ("fourth")."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking
 

pame

Hall of Fame
The original (non-edited) methodology in your first post was correct. It followed Olympic Standard tie rules, as I've pointed out. Bowing to pressure from the Federer Mafia to change it so Nadal drops a few places in some categories is frankly pathetic. And spineless.

It's not "more accurate". It's just more suitable to Federistas, and shows how easily statistics can be manipulated. A tie formula used by the Olympics isn't good enough now, if Federer fans don't like the results.

No wonder this place is called Federer Warehouse.
further to my last response, your information about the awarding of medals is incorrect. For example:
1984 Los Angeles Gymnastics Men's rings Koji Gushiken
22px-Flag_of_Japan_%281870-1999%29.svg.png
Japan - gold medal
Li Ning
23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png
China - gold medal
Silver medal Not awarded
as there was a tie for gold.
Mitchell Gaylord
23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png
United States awarded bronze

In all instances of ties, the following medal was NOT awarded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ties_for_medals_at_the_Olympics
 
Last edited:
Top