Ranking analysis in Big3 H2H

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I completed your data. It's easier to win against top 10 in a weak era. 2016 Federer only had 1 top 10 win despite the weak era.
post-2016AO Federer hardly has any relevance in the rivalry against Djokovic. They met only twice.

I was just showing that Fed was very good even when he was 2-3 years older than in 2014-15.

You don't meet many top10 in weak era. They don't reach the last rounds.
 
post-2016AO Federer hardly has any relevance in the rivalry against Djokovic. They met only twice.

I was just showing that Fed was very good even when he was 2-3 years older than in 2014-15.

You don't meet many top10 in weak era. They don't reach the last rounds.
2016-2018 Fed proved that he was only winning because of a weak era. It diminishes Djokovic's wins against him in 14-15. 2007-2010 Djokovic played in a strong era, which is why he had a difficult time accumulating GOAT points and top 10 wins.

Top 20 Year End ATP points:

2007 - 93566
2008 - 90671
2009 - 82860
2010 - 78291
Average - 86347

2015 - 84703
2016 - 78871
2017 - 61860
2018 - 75671
Average - 75276
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
2016-2018 Fed proved that he was only winning because of a weak era. It diminishes Djokovic's wins against him in 14-15. 2007-2010 Djokovic played in a strong era, which is why he had a difficult time accumulating GOAT points and top 10 wins.

Top 20 Year End ATP points:

2007 - 93566
2008 - 90671
2009 - 82860
2010 - 78291
Average - 86347

2015 - 84703
2016 - 78871
2017 - 61860
2018 - 75671
Average - 75276
Don't tell me you multiplied 2007 and 2008 points x2 :sick:

Why no 2014?
 
@Sputnik Bulgorov

real top20 points:

2009 - 82,860
2010 - 78,291

2014 - 83,030
2015 - 84,703

Results: 14-15 Federer > 09-10 Djokovic
Competition: 14-15 Federer > 09-10 Djokovic
I don't consider 2014 weak. Based on 2007-2010 vs 2015-2018 data from ultimate tennis statistics though it's different:

Results: 15-18 Federer > 07-10 Djokovic
Competition: 07-10 Djokovic > 15-18 Federer
 
Last edited:
Great post. Shame Nadal couldn’t return the favour and meet Fed at Wimbledon but then Cincy, USO, Madrid indoors.
Nadal since he turned 21 has 3 US Opens..Federer 0. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons...Federer 2 Wimbledons. Federer was 26 when his resume off clay became less impressive than Nadal's. Federer never been Year end no.1 since 2007. Nadal has 4 times, Djokovic 5.

I have to be honest Nadal and Djokovic seem to have moved the game on from Federer if we are objective.
 
I totally disagree, but that's beside the point. The thread is about their h2h and clearly the younger two have an advantage. Tell me, why is it that you can say weak era and I cant? Federer was old and Nadal was past his best after 2013. Murray couldn't really do anything with Djokovic and Wawrinka was practically created by him.


Federer led the H2h on HC through 2012. Nadal avoided him at his peak on HC and everyone knows that. Nadal stole some easy wins in 2013 during Fed's worst year on tour. Fed ultimately gained the advantage again in the h2h over the last few meetings. Nice cherry picking with outdoor HC btw. Again, I said he had a match up problem with Nadal anyways. Also half the matches they played were on clay during Fed's peak. Another fact you are ignoring like most of you do.

Federer led the h2h with Djokovic until 2015. He's simply a victim of his own success and longetivy. How everyone ignores age is insane. You won't if another ATG suddenly emerges. Doesn't look like that will be a problem though does it? :rolleyes:
13 times Nadal and Federer have met on outdoor HC the majority of times when Federer was below 32 (the age of Nadal now). Nadal has won 8 of those Federer 5, and at least two of federer's wins were when Nadal was a teenager.

Nadal and Djokovic are the top 2 in the world over 30. Federer was unable to beat either most of the time after the age of 26.
 
Nadal since he turned 21 has 3 US Opens..Federer 0. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons...Federer 2 Wimbledons. Federer was 26 when his resume off clay became less impressive than Nadal's. Federer never been Year end no.1 since 2007. Nadal has 4 times, Djokovic 5.

I have to be honest Nadal and Djokovic seem to have moved the game on from Federer if we are objective.
What?!? Federer was 26 in august2007. Sinse then he has:
AO: 3 titles and a billion SF/F
W: 3 titles and another 3 finals
USO: 2 titles and another 2 finals

Nadal was 26 in june 2012. Sinse then he has:
0 AO, 0 W and 2 USO.
 
Nadal since he turned 21 has 3 US Opens..Federer 0. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons...Federer 2 Wimbledons. Federer was 26 when his resume off clay became less impressive than Nadal's. Federer never been Year end no.1 since 2007. Nadal has 4 times, Djokovic 5.

I have to be honest Nadal and Djokovic seem to have moved the game on from Federer if we are objective.
I won’t reply to any of this since your figures are all well off.
 
Tip for @Lew II if I may
Copy and paste your stats onto a word doc on your desktop so if mods delete thread of your compiled stats, you can copy and paste it from there.

Saves you the time from collecting stats over and over as it seems very time consuming and a lot of effort not very many people would go through.
 
Tip for @Lew II if I may
Copy and paste your stats onto a word doc on your desktop so if mods delete thread of your compiled stats, you can copy and paste it from there.

Saves you the time from collecting stats over and over as it seems very time consuming and a lot of effort not very many people would go through.
He is already doing that.

Here is a better advice for him: put your time and effort in watching and playing tennis. You will gain more respect towards the game in the process.

:cool:
 
I won’t reply to any of this since your figures are all well off.
No, the reality is if you look at who has won what when all three were at their peaks at the same time, Nadal and Djokovic have almost double the titles and time at no.1 than Federer, in fact I do not think Federer has ended the year no.1 since 2009?
 
No, the reality is if you look at who has won what when all three were at their peaks at the same time, Nadal and Djokovic have almost double the titles and time at no.1 than Federer, in fact I do not think Federer has ended the year no.1 since 2009?
Federer’s peak ended when he got mono in 2008.

If you want to say he was close to his best from 2008-2012 then he won 5 slams to Rafa’s 8 and Nole’s 5.

Then again Nole won 0 slams and Rafa won 3 between 2004-2007 compared to Fed’s 12 so this line of argument is futile.
 
Federer’s peak ended when he got mono in 2008.

If you want to say he was close to his best from 2008-2012 then he won 5 slams to Rafa’s 8 and Nole’s 5.

Then again Nole won 0 slams and Rafa won 3 between 2004-2007 compared to Fed’s 12 so this line of argument is futile.
Federer was not past his peak at 2008, he was 25!! As for mono, that was a lame excuse as people with mono do not have the energy to play sport, let alone professionally!

Comparing him to teenage Nadal and Djokovic is not relevant at all. both were not even 50% of the players they turned out to be.
 
Federer was not past his peak at 2008, he was 25!! As for mono, that was a lame excuse as people with mono do not have the energy to play sport, let alone professionally!

Comparing him to teenage Nadal and Djokovic is not relevant at all. both were not even 50% of the players they turned out to be.
Can you point at the peak performance for Nadal on clay and on grass respectively?

Thanks.

:cool:
 
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.
Excellent poast. Most sensible thing I have read today.
 
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.
You're saying Federer's 20 slam wins cannot be used as a measure of ability as they may have been achieved against players whose form was off in the particular matches when they played Federer?

Or does this "particular match" version of measurement get thrown out of the window when it doesn't suit the Federer acolytes?
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
(excluding themselves from the ranking, without walkover wins)

wins over no.1 in the rivalry:

Djokovic-Federer 8-6
Djokovic-Nadal 13-7
Nadal-Federer 14-8

over top-2

Djokovic-Federer 21-16
Djokovic-Nadal 20-18
Nadal-Federer 19-10

over top-3

Djokovic-Federer 22-18
Djokovic-Nadal 20-19
Nadal-Federer 20-10

over top-4

Djokovic-Federer 22-18
Djokovic-Nadal 26-21
Nadal-Federer 21-10

over top-5

Djokovic-Federer 23-18
Djokovic-Nadal 26-22
Nadal-Federer 22-10
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
excluding themselves from the ranking:

Djokovic beat Federer who had a ranking of 1.86 (geometric mean)
Federer beat Djokovic who had a ranking of 2.68

Djokovic beat Nadal who had a ranking of 1.83
Nadal beat Djokovic who had a ranking of 2.48

Nadal beat Federer who had a ranking of 1.50
Federer beat Nadal who had a ranking of 2.28
 
Federer was not past his peak at 2008, he was 25!! As for mono, that was a lame excuse as people with mono do not have the energy to play sport, let alone professionally!

Comparing him to teenage Nadal and Djokovic is not relevant at all. both were not even 50% of the players they turned out to be.
Agree especially on Djokovic. Djokovic was not on tour in 2004 and was a baby in 2005 (just watch highlights of him vs. Safin in the AO to appreciate this).
 
Agree especially on Djokovic. Djokovic was not on tour in 2004 and was a baby in 2005 (just watch highlights of him vs. Safin in the AO to appreciate this).
It would be better if you check whether what you are agreeing is is actually true. Federer was not 25 in 2008.

Also, especially for Nadal my question of when Nadal's peak years on grass and clay happened the poster you are responding to is quite the riot: check out his answer in post #232.

:cool:
 
It would be better if you check whether what you are agreeing is is actually true. Federer was not 25 in 2008.

Also, especially for Nadal my question of when Nadal's peak years on grass and clay happened the poster you are responding to is quite the riot: check out his answer in post #232.

:cool:
OK, so he was 26 for 3/4 slams that year. Not exactly old or post-prime.
I guess the only “hot take” would be his claim that peak Grassdal was 2018, when most would say 2008 or 2010. Still, 2018 Nadal was obviously very strong on grass and he would have likely mowed down Anderson in a final had he managed to get by Djokovic in that fifth set.
 
OK, so he was 26 for 3/4 slams that year. Not exactly old or post-prime.
For only one he was as close to 26 as he was to 27. For two he was much closer to 27.

For comparison, Djokovic was 26 and a half in November 2013. Around that time he lost at the USO, AO and RG in succession, before meeting 33 y o Federer in the Final of Wimbledon, and then lost to Nishikori at the US Open 2014.

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
This thread debunks the declined Federer excuse. He had on average a better ranking than both Djokovic and Nadal.

Djokovic, on the contrary, had a worse ranking than both, so he leads the H2Hs despite this disadvantage.
 
This thread debunks the declined Federer excuse. He had on average a better ranking than both Djokovic and Nadal.

Djokovic, on the contrary, had a worse ranking than both, so he leads the H2Hs despite this disadvantage.
That was the intention of the thread. It produced exactly the opposite result.

:cool:
 
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?
This is perfect. Nobody can say against this cause it's facts.
 
This is perfect. Nobody can say against this cause it's facts.
The facts themselves, i.e. the data can't really be argued, sure, but the assumed correlation between a 52-week ranking system and a sense of absolute form in particular matches definitely can be, and has been throughout this entire thread. Besides, their ranking in recent history has largely swapped about around 1 - 3 with some volatility anyway.

But if we're going down the road of assuming such indications, why was Federer the higher ranked opponent, on aggregate? Had he been the better player against the field more often? Clue: Yes.
 
Top