Ranking analysis in Big3 H2H

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#1
Since Federer was often said to be in bad form when he lost to Djokovic or Nadal, I wanted to check the ranking position in their meetings.

DJOKOVIC
beat Nadal 28 times, and Nadal had an average ranking (geometric mean) of 2.14.
beat Federer 25 times, and Federer had an average ranking of 2.42.

NADAL
beat Djokovic 25 times, and Djokovic had an average ranking of 3.03.
beat Federer 23 times, and Federer had an average ranking of 1.70.

FEDERER
beat Djokovic 22 times, and Djokovic had an average ranking of 3.12.
beat Nadal 15 times, and Nadal had an average ranking of 2.94.

Looking at this, does it seem to you that in the h2h between Big3, Federer on average was the one in the worst form?
 
#4
Since Federer was often said to be in bad form when he lost to Djokovic or Nadal, I wanted to check the ranking position in their meetings.

DJOKOVIC
beat Nadal 28 times, and Nadal had an average ranking (geometric mean) of 2.14.
beat Federer 25 times, and Federer had an average ranking of 2.42.

NADAL
beat Djokovic 25 times, and Djokovic had an average ranking of 3.03.
beat Federer 23 times, and Federer had an average ranking of 1.70.

FEDERER
beat Djokovic 22 times, and Djokovic had an average ranking of 3.12.
beat Nadal 15 times, and Nadal had an average ranking of 2.94.

Looking at this, does it seem to you that in the h2h between Big3, Federer on average was the one in the worst form?
Federer's record. Lol

Once they caught him, a total inferiority against Djokovic and Nadal.:oops:
 
#5
It basically shows what we already know. Federer is never going to be on the good end of these stats because:

1. He's 5-6 years older
2. He spent a lot of time at #1
3. Nadal had his number/met a lot on clay
4. His longetivity coupled with consistency
5. Weak field after 2013 that he was better than, but a rung below Djokovic.
6. A new racket and strategy that helped him do #4 & #5
 
#9
Do you actually watch tennis? Genuine question. All you post is numbers, never really give a thorough, detailed explanation on levels of play. Just numbers all the time as if the sport is played on a calculator.
A thorough, detailed explanation on levels of play in 138 matches? C'mon, man. :)

Beside that the task you propose would demand writing a book (or few books even), you completely disregarded importance and indicative power of statistical averages.

If you want to disprove this data, it's easy - just provide complete evidence that these averages are deceptive. This would mean that big3 rankings didn't nearly corespond to actual level of play in at least 50% of those 138 H2H matches.

My spider-senses tell me you're not going to do it, but you're welcome to surprise me. :)


Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#10
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
 
#11
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
Yep, this is about the best way you can put it when it comes to Backerer and new racket Fed. He could've really made some ground on Nadal and maybe kept it even with Djokovic.
 
#12
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
If I am in Lew 2 ‘a position , I would immediately delete my account and vanish , after seeing how I have been exposed
 
#15
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
AO 2014 is not part of 2013, thus not 7 meetings. Sorry but 2014 was not Federer's worst year, try another excuse to justify his loss to Nadal at the AO 2014.
 
#17
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
Evergreen Fed.

Fed for all seasons, Slump or No Slump.

The other two shows up in patches of good weather only.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#18
Wins over top5 Big3:

Djokovic 48
Nadal 42
Federer 28

Wins over top10 Big3:

Djokovic 53
Nadal 45
Federer 32
 
Last edited:
#19
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
 
#20
The fact that ranking does not necessarily reflect the level of play in matches throughout the year has been demonstrated so often, yet it still has somehow gone over some posters' heads completely.

Determining a player's form in a particular match by looking at what their ranking was when the match was played is somewhat like marking a student's test in a random class based on their last semester GPA - it's a poor method to say the least.

Should one follow the OP's 'form equals ranking' logic though, they would conclude that Djokovic in the 2nd half of 2016 and 1st half of 2017 was actually in his top form - actually better than during the famous 43-match winning streak! :eek::eek: The things you learn thanks to @Lew II's statistical analysis prowess.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#21
The fact that ranking does not necessarily reflect the level of play in matches throughout the year has been demonstrated so often, yet it still has somehow gone over some posters' heads completely.

Determining a player's form in a particular match by looking at what their ranking was when the match was played is somewhat like marking a student's test in a random class based on their last semester GPA - it's a poor method to say the least.

Should one follow the OP's 'form equals ranking' logic though, they would conclude that Djokovic in the 2nd half of 2016 and 1st half of 2017 was actually in his top form - actually better than during the famous 43-match winning streak! :eek::eek: The things you learn thanks to @Lew II's statistical analysis prowess.
On average who plays better, No.1 or no.10?
 
#23
The fact that ranking does not necessarily reflect the level of play in matches throughout the year has been demonstrated so often, yet it still has somehow gone over some posters' heads completely.

Determining a player's form in a particular match by looking at what their ranking was when the match was played is somewhat like marking a student's test in a random class based on their last semester GPA - it's a poor method to say the least.

Should one follow the OP's 'form equals ranking' logic though, they would conclude that Djokovic in the 2nd half of 2016 and 1st half of 2017 was actually in his top form - actually better than during the famous 43-match winning streak! :eek::eek: The things you learn thanks to @Lew II's statistical analysis prowess.
Solid objection. However, ranking generally (not always) reflects form. As a general rule, a top 10 player will be most times in better form than a player outside the top 50 or top 100.

Thus, the data are valid if we assume in 70%-80% of the cases, the ranking does correlate with form.
 
#26
Solid objection. However, ranking generally (not always) reflects form. As a general rule, a top 10 player will be most times in better form than a player outside the top 50 or top 100.

Thus, the data are valid if we assume in 70%-80% of the cases, the ranking does correlate with form.
Why would you assume when you can watch the actual matches?

You watch a match and you generally can tell whether a player was in good form or not. Not everyone will have the exact same assessment but it won't be as faulty as just assuming that a higher ranked player was in top form in any given match, low ranked player was in poor form.
 
#28
Why some guys here have such a great problem with grasping the concept of career averages, acting like this data is not highly indicative?

Just kidding, we all know why. :)



Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
How are career averages more relevant in discussions about form in a match than the footage and stats from the match? Enlighten me please.
 
#29
The fact that ranking does not necessarily reflect the level of play in matches throughout the year has been demonstrated so often, yet it still has somehow gone over some posters' heads completely.

Determining a player's form in a particular match by looking at what their ranking was when the match was played is somewhat like marking a student's test in a random class based on their last semester GPA - it's a poor method to say the least.

Should one follow the OP's 'form equals ranking' logic though, they would conclude that Djokovic in the 2nd half of 2016 and 1st half of 2017 was actually in his top form - actually better than during the famous 43-match winning streak! :eek::eek: The things you learn thanks to @Lew II's statistical analysis prowess.
About this students example - Man, you couldn't choose worse example. Correlation between students past average grades and future grades is so much stronger than almost any other example you could choose, and surely stronger than in big3 h2h records. What a fail.

'form equals ranking' logic - Literally nobody on this forum ever followed this line of reasoning. It's just a straw-man you self created and attacked. Why using this logical fallacy in an argument? We can only guess, but we all have a pretty good idea why. :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#31
Why some guys here have such a great problem with grasping the concept of career averages, acting like this data is not highly indicative?

Just kidding, we all know why. :)



Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
This is not something where you can say over a person’s career it all evens out

As has been pointed out , it favors players who are not No 1 or players who have peaks and troughs and punishes the player who is older and who is consistent

Is this not clear enough ???
 
Last edited:
#32
How are career averages more relevant in discussions about form in a match than the footage and stats from the match? Enlighten me please.
No one ever said that. It's just your straw-man, you created it, so you can play with it, I'm not interested, not my style.

There, now you can see the light.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#34
This is not something where you can say over a person’s career it all evens out

As has been pointed out , it favors players who are not No 1 or players who have peaks and troughs and punishes the players who is older and who is consistent

Is this not clear enough ???
Yeah, it is perfectly clear. It's just that - it's not correct.

Please, tell us more about how playing a match against best player in the world favours you?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#35
Too bad Federer couldn’t beat a single #1 player from 2004-2007. He should have known he could never please Lew II that way.
Yeah, during that period he lost at least 50 h2h matches vs Nadal and especially vs Djokovic, something like that?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#36
About this students example - Man, you couldn't choose worse example. Correlation between students past average grades and future grades is so much stronger than almost any other example you could choose, and surely stronger than in big3 h2h records. What a fail.

'form equals ranking' logic - Literally nobody on this forum ever followed this line of reasoning. It's just a straw-man you self created and attacked. Why using this logical fallacy in an argument? We can only guess, but we all have a pretty good idea why. :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
You should try to promote the new reform in schools where teachers don't waste their time marking students' tests based on how they did. Just take the average of all classes for one semester and go with it. The correlation is so strong, why bother? :rolleyes:

News flash, this thread is based on this line of reasoning. If you don't support it then we don't have anything to argue about here.
 
#38
Yeah, it is perfectly clear. It's just that - it's not correct.

Please, tell us more about how playing a match against best player in the world favours you?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
You are still missing it . Players ranking is past 12 months reflection . It does not determine playing level on that day.
 
#39
Fed vs. Rafa from 2013. 2013, Fed's worst year on tour in recent memory: They meet 4 times, Rafa wins them all and gets a win at the AO 2014. Post FO 2014: Rafa falls off a cliff and they meet just 1 time in the next 2,5 years.

Fed vs. Novak in recent memory: Fed's there to meet Novak in his utter dominance period every single time.
2011: 5 times (4-1 Novak)
2012: 5 times, (3-2 Novak)
2013: 2 times (Novak wins both)
2014: 5 times (3-2 Fed, not counting the W/O).
2015, 8 freaking times in Novak's most dominant year (5-3 Novak)
2016: AO.

Post WTF 2016, Novak falls of a cliff, no meetings for 1,5 years until Cinci 2018 followed by Paris 2018 (Novak wins both).

See a pattern? Fed meet them 6 times in 2013 (7 including AO 2014) in his worst ever form. They met him once in their combined 4 year slump.
Just give it up my friend, when it comes to Roger there is evidently no such thing as explanations, only excuses:rolleyes:
 
#43
You are still missing it . Players ranking is past 12 months reflection . It does not determine playing level on that day.
No one here mentioned even one specific match played on a specific day. I genuinely advise you to research basics of averages in statistics. Not trying to be arrogant or condescending - just google it up, it will make your future arguments sharper.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#44
Just read the posts... this forum is so full of **** it’s unreal.
Like @tennisaddict said in another thread, we weren't out here making threads to denigrate Djokovic when Fed was winning. It's just insecurity at its highest because they know it's going to be tough to get the slam record. That's why the push to be ahead of Sampras and Nadal so soon. Time is running out and they know it.
 
#45
No one here mentioned even one specific match played on a specific day. I genuinely advise you to research basics of averages in statistics. Not trying to be arrogant or condescending - just google it up, it will make your future arguments sharper.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Enough examples have been provided in the DJokovic - Federer rivalry to show how this stat makes little sense. A larger sample set or even a entire career need not give you any meaningful results.
 
#46
Lew winds them up again. Lol. 8-B One thing I like about Lew though is that he doesn't insult posters who disagree with him or try to bully them when they don't see his point of view. That doesn't mean I don't think he somewhat has an agenda, lots of others do too on here, but he just ignores the insults and keeps on posting his stats. I have to admit it's a little comical how upset some of you get when it comes to this stuff.

Look, Federer could have retired in 2012 and went out with a bang at 31 like Sampras did. Federer had an amazing 2012 and won his 17th Slam. So he could easily have said I have had enough and it's time to move on to something else and enjoy the fruits of my labor. Instead, he chose to keep playing and when you keep playing you are going to have to play the top players to win big tournaments. There is no way around it. He added 3 more Slams and 6 Masters since then.

So he could have retired in 2012 with a 16-13 record against Djokovic, 17 Slams and 21 Masters, but his Slam record would all but be surpassed by now with Djokovic closing in and Djokodal would have much more Masters than him. But hey at least he would have a winning head to head against Djokovic (sarcasm). You can't have it all. Djokovic and Nadal can't either. Federer playing longer increased his legacy not hurt it and losing the head to heads comes along with that territory.
 
#47
Like @tennisaddict said in another thread, we weren't out here making threads to denigrate Djokovic when Fed was winning. It's just insecurity at its highest because they know it's going to be tough to get the slam record. That's why the push to be ahead of Sampras and Nadal so soon. Time is running out and they know it.
So I guess you were immune and blind to the multiple Pepe threads, threads about Djokovic being Finnished and threads about his supposed marriage troubles? There were multiple threads back then making fun of Novak's troubles and it's amazing that this escaped you. To tell you the truth, you haven't been a great example of "security" these past few months yourself.
 
#48
You can never beat the straw-man, because he is whatever his creator wants him to be. So yeah, I lose.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
In the opening post, it is implied that because Federer was ranked the highest on average when losing to Djokodal means he couldn't be on average "the one in the worst form" in his losses. So the average ranking is being equated to average form. This would only follow from a players' form being determined by their ranking, correct? That's why I referred to this line of reasoning as 'form equals ranking'.

Perhaps @Lew II could help me out and confirm that was the idea behind this thread. This way we'll know for sure if a straw man is the reason you lose.
 
#49
So I guess you were immune and blind to the multiple Pepe threads, threads about Djokovic being Finnished and threads about his supposed marriage troubles? There were multiple threads back then making fun of Novak's troubles and it's amazing that this escaped you. To tell you the truth, you haven't been a great example of "security" these past few months yourself.
Ok Nolefam. You go back and look through those threads and see where I stood. One of the few Fed fans that wished him well and believed he would come back. Go look. Take all the time you need.
 
#50
Nice try op, but those average rankings don’t really mean much when all three players were ranked within the top 3 in the majority of the meetings. In other words, the differences are just noise (which I believe would be more obviously apparent if error bars were attached to the average rankings).

A much more meaningful way to conduct this analysis would be to start with a Gaussian fit of the pro tennis performance-vs-age curve that has been posted a few times here. Then plot the average number of standard deviations away from the optimum age (about 25) at the time of the head-to-head matches.

PS. I have no dog in this fight. I am just curious about whether or not the data would show an advantage or disadvantage to any of the players.
 
Last edited:
Top