Prestige of players beat in Slam finals/semi

Let’s ask Nadal what he thought about low-ranked players from 2012-2017 at Wimbledon(ages 26-31).

Did Nadal call all of thoselow-ranked guys mugs? Was Nadal constantly in the semis and finals during this time span while not dropping a set until the quarters each time?

Or is it possible that faster surfaces can cause a more upsets, which makes these kinds of stats meaningless, unless context is added.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Shouldn't you be waiting for that to happen to actually flaunt it as some sort of victory banner?

If you have some sort of bet going on and it applies to you as well, doesn't that mean that the same fate awaits you should this not materialise?

:cool:
Click to expand...
He will just vanish should he loses just like most of the Djokovic fanbase did last two years..
 
tennisaddict said:
He will just vanish should he loses just like most of the Djokovic fanbase did last two years..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know how all these accounts are. No biggie either way, but it is remarkable how he announces victory before it happens. Maybe he is afraid that he won't have the chance to really announce it, so he tries to get out as much as possible out of it now when he still can?

8-)
 
125downthemiddle said:
I would like to see evidence of this oft repeated claim.

I never vanished for one.
Click to expand...

Yourself, hitman, Doctor, jm1980 will always deserve my respect for that.

But I can make a long list of those who vanished- includes assjoker, abcd. cygs, 5555, djok2011 and even Nolefam was seen hardly ever.

Now i know what the excuse would be - this place was too intolerable with the Fedal euphoria and all that. But fact remains most of the members were more happy about Fedal's success and sympathetic towards Djoker's injury

Contrast that with what happens now -- there is not a celebration of Djoker's success - 3 out of 3 majors . Lew opens every day a thread diminishing Fed and folks like ABCD, CYGS all add fuel to fire.
 
Last edited:
tennisaddict said:
Yourself, hitman, Doctor will always deserve my respect for that.

But I can make a long list of those who vanished- includes assjoker, abcd. cygs, 5555, djok2011 and even Nolefam was seen hardly ever.

Now i know what the excuse would be - this place was too intolerable with the Fedal euphoria and all that. But fact remains most of the members were more happy about Fedal's success and sympathetic towards Djoker's injury

Contrast that with what happens now -- there is not a celeberation of Djoker's success - 3 out of 3 majors . Lew opens every day a thread diminishing Fed and folks like ABCD, CYGS all add fuel to fire.
Click to expand...

I didn't see a lot of sympathy to Djokovics injury.

There are better and worse fans in each fanbase though.

Lew for example I see those threads as stats that are interesting
Now yes of course they are from a certain angle and meant to provoke etc.

But that is not the same thing as just taking shots at Novak randomly in every thread. I think there are a few fans that take retaliation against these overly excited Novak fans too far.

If it was in reverse some of the comments about Djokovic but about Federer the person would be called out a lot more.
 
125downthemiddle said:
I didn't see a lot of sympathy to Djokovics injury.

There are better and worse fans in each fanbase though.

Lew for example I see those threads as stats that are interesting
Now yes of course they are from a certain angle and meant to provoke etc.

But that is not the same thing as just taking shots at Novak randomly in every thread. I think there are a few fans that take retaliation against these overly excited Novak fans too far.

If it was in reverse some of the comments about Djokovic but about Federer the person would be called out a lot more.
Click to expand...
You were the very FIRST person to give this thread a like at 8:30 this morning LOL!
 
True Fanerer said:
You were the very FIRST person to give this thread a like at 8:30 this morning LOL!
Click to expand...

So? When I said get a life I explained it is about your repeated nastiness in unrelated threads. Not about how poppin your social life seems. (We both know you have none) I was actually awake at 7 am if you must know :-D
 
ollinger said:
No, it deserves to be treated as pointless. Rankings are ordinal numbers and should not be treated like cardinal numbers as a way to assess a player's opponents.
Click to expand...
Only because Lew II posts stats you do not agree with, he should be treated as pointless? So every person who says something you do not agree with, should be treated as pointless. You act like a reiligion fanatic: "only what Ollinger believes should be threated as valid, different pointviews from Ollinger should be treated as pointless".

Lew II brings data. What do you bring to support your claims? Nothing. What are your data indicating that Federer faced an opossition equally strong as Nadal and Djokovic?
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
Only because Lew II post stats you do not agree with, he should be treated as pointless? So every person who says something you do not agree with, should be treated as pointless. You act like a reiligion fanatic: "only what Ollinger believes should be threated as valid, different pointviews from Ollinger should be treated as pointless".

Lew II brings data. What do you bring to support your claims? Nothing. What are your data indicating that Federer faced an opossition equally strong as Nadal and Djokovic?
Click to expand...

This thread is a joke and it does not need a scientist to prove.

Ollinger need not bring in alternative theory to evaluate competition to disprove the garbage that this thread is.
 
Lew II said:
https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

Here you can see a rank of players by Greatness. I wanted to check the position in this rank of players the Big3 beat in Slam finals and semifinals:

FEDERER

finals:

x4 Roddick no.21
x3 Nadal no.3
x3 Murray no.13
x2 Cilic no.53
Djokovic no.2
Agassi no.9
Hewitt no.20
Safin no.34
Soderling no.73
Gonzalez no.73
Philippoussis no.90
Baghdatis no.166

geometric mean 18.84

semifinals:

x4 Djokovic no.2
x3 Roddick no.21
x3 Davydenko no.43
x2 Hewitt no.20
x2 Wawrinka no.36
Murray no.13
Del Potro no.32
Safin no.34
Ferrero no.37
Berdych no.40
Tsonga no.51
Nalbandian no.54
Haas no.58
Henman no.64
Raonic no.66
Gasquet no.87
Monfils no.87
Grosjean no.93
Kiefer no.114
Chung no.395

geometric mean: 29.06


NADAL

finals:

x6 Federer no.1
x4 Djokovic no.2
Ferrer no.27
Wawrinka no.36
Berdych no.40
Soderling no.73
Thiem no.90
Anderson no.114
Puerta no.231

geometric mean: 6.69

semifinals:

x5 Murray no.13
x4 Djokovic no.2
x3 Federer no.1
x2 Del Potro no.32
Ferrer no.27
Ljubicic no.84
Gasquet no.87
Dimitrov no.90
Thiem no.90
Youzhny no.109
Verdasco no.131
Schuettler no.143
Baghdatis no.166
Melzer no.188
Tsitsipas no.231

geometric mean: 19.33


DJOKOVIC

finals:

x5 Murray no.13
x4 Nadal no.3
x3 Federer no.1
Del Potro no.32
Tsonga no.51
Anderson no.114

geometric mean: 7.08

semifinals:

x6 Federer no.1
x3 Ferrer no.27
x2 Murray no.13
x2 Wawrinka no.36
Nadal no.3
Del Potro no.32
Nishikori no.49
Tsonga no.51
Cilic no.53
Gasquet no.87
Monfils no.87
Dimitrov no.90
Thiem no.90
Pouille no.171
Gulbis no.199

geometric mean: 16.25
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, those Federer numbers. :censored::oops: Like a completely different sport FGS...
 
tennisaddict said:
This thread is a joke and it does not need a scientist to prove.

Ollinger need not bring in alternative theory to evaluate competition to disprove the garbage that this thread is.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. If he does not offer data, then Federer did have an overall easier path in his Slams than Nadal and Djokovic.

Lew II offers data, Ollinger offers nothing.
 
Sport said:
Incorrect. If he does not offer data, then Federer did have an overall easier path in his Slams than Nadal and Djokovic.

Lew II offers data, Ollinger offers nothing.
Click to expand...

Lew's "data" ranks Federer/Djokovic on all surfaces equally as competition - which is obviously false.
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
Only because Lew II post stats you do not agree with, he should be treated as pointless? So every person who says something you do not agree with, should be treated as pointless. You act like a reiligion fanatic: "only what Ollinger believes should be threated as valid, different pointviews from Ollinger should be treated as pointless".

Lew II brings data. What do you bring to support your claims? Nothing. What are your data indicating that Federer faced an opossition equally strong as Nadal and Djokovic?
Click to expand...

How can one not "agree" with stats? The stats are just numbers.

I mean,you can say that the numbers are incorrect, so you can "agree/disagree" with their accuracy, but beside that to "disagree" with them requires that an assertion based on them is made, and if that is the case, ollinger is not disagreeing with the numbers, but with the assertion based on faulty corelation (for reasons that he already stated) of the stats.

If you think that his reasoning is faulty, you should say so, and why. You incorrectly stated that he has nothing that supports his claims. His claims were that the interpretation of the stats is incorrect, and he said why. I don't see you proving him wrong, so it is you who base your attack on him on nothing.

He didn't say that Lew should be treated as pointless. He said that his thread should be treated as pointless.That is a very reasonable position, if one finds that the reason why it exists is to falsify and speculate. Actually , he has been generous by calling it "pointless" instead of "harmful" which is what it really is.

I hardly understood anything from your last paragraph. ollinger didn't make any claims outside of finding fault with how Lew worked with the stats presented in the OP.


:cool:
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
Incorrect. If he does not offer data, then Federer did have an overall easier path in his Slams than Nadal and Djokovic.

Lew II offers data, Ollinger offers nothing.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.

He might not want to prove anything other than that the assertion based on Lew's logic is wrong.

He doesn't have any obligation to fill your lacking knowledge of their respective competitions.

I don't know, maybe that is how it works with some people: they are content with false theories, even when it is proven that they are false, just because they don't know anything else (and I am generous here, this site is full of discussions concerning competition that do not resort to cherry-picking and false claims. You just conveniently ignore them. It has happened to me in conversations with you, so you don't have a leg to stand on when explaining that).

:cool:
 
vive le beau jeu ! said:
oh my fed... the lewddle factory also works during the weekends! :oops:

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Mesmerising stuff
tennisaddict said:
@jm1980 Yet another rehash thread.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not Lew's keeper
 
ABCD said:
I disagree. Djokovic faced the best version of Federer in 2015.

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August 2015).




I would not say a joke, but it was weaker than in the presence of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray.
Click to expand...
Federer hasn't peaked yet. Let's talk in 2025 after he has 10 more yrs of practice
 
Lew II said:
https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

Here you can see a rank of players by Greatness. I wanted to check the position in this rank of players the Big3 beat in Slam finals and semifinals:

FEDERER

finals:

x4 Roddick no.21
x3 Nadal no.3
x3 Murray no.13
x2 Cilic no.53
Djokovic no.2
Agassi no.9
Hewitt no.20
Safin no.34
Soderling no.73
Gonzalez no.73
Philippoussis no.90
Baghdatis no.166

geometric mean 18.84

semifinals:

x4 Djokovic no.2
x3 Roddick no.21
x3 Davydenko no.43
x2 Hewitt no.20
x2 Wawrinka no.36
Murray no.13
Del Potro no.32
Safin no.34
Ferrero no.37
Berdych no.40
Tsonga no.51
Nalbandian no.54
Haas no.58
Henman no.64
Raonic no.66
Gasquet no.87
Monfils no.87
Grosjean no.93
Kiefer no.114
Chung no.395

geometric mean: 29.06


NADAL

finals:

x6 Federer no.1
x4 Djokovic no.2
Ferrer no.27
Wawrinka no.36
Berdych no.40
Soderling no.73
Thiem no.90
Anderson no.114
Puerta no.231

geometric mean: 6.69

semifinals:

x5 Murray no.13
x4 Djokovic no.2
x3 Federer no.1
x2 Del Potro no.32
Ferrer no.27
Ljubicic no.84
Gasquet no.87
Dimitrov no.90
Thiem no.90
Youzhny no.109
Verdasco no.131
Schuettler no.143
Baghdatis no.166
Melzer no.188
Tsitsipas no.231

geometric mean: 19.33


DJOKOVIC

finals:

x5 Murray no.13
x4 Nadal no.3
x3 Federer no.1
Del Potro no.32
Tsonga no.51
Anderson no.114

geometric mean: 7.08

semifinals:

x6 Federer no.1
x3 Ferrer no.27
x2 Murray no.13
x2 Wawrinka no.36
Nadal no.3
Del Potro no.32
Nishikori no.49
Tsonga no.51
Cilic no.53
Gasquet no.87
Monfils no.87
Dimitrov no.90
Thiem no.90
Pouille no.171
Gulbis no.199

geometric mean: 16.25
Click to expand...
Is it me or has anyone noticed Federer would have better geometric means if he lost a few finals and semi finals to Hewitt and Roddick letting them win few more slams and go up the goat list. In other words fed would be a better player in Lews distorted mind if he lost more to his generation the way Djokovic lost to Murray and Stan!
 
tennisfanboy said:
Is it me or has anyone noticed Federer would have better geometric means if he lost a few finals and semi finals to Hewitt and Roddick letting them win few more slams and go up the goat list. In other words fed would be a better player in Lews distorted mind if he lost more to his generation the way Djokovic lost to Murray and Stan!
Click to expand...
He would have less Slam titles though.

Greatness is made by both achievements and competition
 
Lew II said:
He would have less Slam titles though.

Greatness is made by both achievements and competition
Click to expand...
Yes but I see a scenario where he's still #1 on the goat list with lower number of slams and Hewitt and Roddick go higher if he lost couple of slams to them. Cmon dude.
 
tennisfanboy said:
Lol! I don't need to bring any data. He'd still be #1 with 18 slams if he donated a couple to Roddick and Hewitt which would put them higher in the goat list resulting in better geometric mean for him. Anyone with elementary school math will understand that.
Click to expand...

@Lew II exposed yet again . Stupidity exhibition by him yet again
 
tennisfanboy said:
Lol! I don't need to bring any data. He'd still be #1 with 18 slams if he donated a couple to Roddick and Hewitt which would put them higher in the goat list resulting in better geometric mean for him. Anyone with elementary school math will understand that.
Click to expand...
Would his record be safe with 18 titles?

Would this ''better geometric mean'' be enough to close the gap I showed in post #2? As I said, bring some data.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
That is incorrect.

He might not want to prove anything other than that the assertion based on Lew's logic is wrong.

He doesn't have any obligation to fill your lacking knowledge of their respective competitions.

I don't know, maybe that is how it works with some people: they are content with false theories, even when it is proven that they are false, just because they don't know anything else (and I am generous here, this site is full of discussions concerning competition that do not resort to cherry-picking and false claims. You just conveniently ignore them. It has happened to me in conversations with you, so you don't have a leg to stand on when explaining that).

:cool:
Click to expand...
It's basically the Argument from Ignorance fallacy ad nauseum.
 
@tennisfanboy

If Fed lost a slam final each to Hewitt and Roddick, they would be no.18 and no.21 in that list, instead of no.20 and no.21, causing the geometric mean of Federer to be nearly the same (18.61/28.85 instead of 18.84/29.06).

And with 18 slams he would now have only a 1-3 slam lead over 5-6 years younger Nadal and Djokovic.
 
Last edited:
Lew II said:
Would his record be safe with 18 titles?

Would a ''better geometric mean'' be enough to close the gap I showed in post #2? As I said, bring some data.
Click to expand...
I don't need to bring any data. I already exposed your agenda here with simple math. Roger's record is not safe with 20 slams or 18. GOAT is just a reference to point in time. Laver was GOAT at some point in time. Pete was at some other and Federer is the GOAT at the moment. He will be usurped at some point by someone if you go by pure statistics. If not Djokovic somebody else at some point is going to have better results. But, That won't take anything away from his GOATdom. Records are meant to be set and broken.
 
tennisfanboy said:
I don't need to bring any data. I already exposed your agenda here with simple math.
Click to expand...

You didn't expose anything:

Lew II said:
@tennisfanboy

If Fed lost a slam final each to Hewitt and Roddick, they would be no.18 and no.21 in that list, instead of no.20 and no.21, causing the geometric mean of Federer to be nearly the same (18.61/28.85 instead of 18.84/29.06).

And with 18 slams he would now have only a 1-3 slam lead over 5-6 years younger Nadal and Djokovic.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Slams won by players beaten in grand slams
Replies
23
Views
979
donquijote
donquijote
Lew II
  • Poll Poll
Rank Big3's Slam final/semifinal opponents
Replies
26
Views
1K
Yugram
Yugram
Leandro2045
Since Wimbledon 2001 only two lefties have been in a Grand Slam Final.
Replies
21
Views
1K
N01E
N01E
Lew II
Players met and beat in Slam finals and semifinals
Replies
23
Views
897
Lew II
Lew II
A
Records in tiebreaks (active players)
Replies
30
Views
2K
abraxas21
A
Back
Top