R
Robert Baratheon
Guest
Children adjusted by difficulty:-
Federer 3.2
Djokovic 5
Nadal 7.7 billion
Federer 3.2
Djokovic 5
Nadal 7.7 billion
So,10 slams won by Big3 with the highest ranked opponents
2013 RG (Nadal) - 12.4
2011 AO (Djokovic) - 13.4
2016 AO (Djokovic) - 15.1
2013 AO (Djokovic) - 15.3
2010 AO (Federer) - 16.2
2015 WI (Djokovic) - 16.9
2008 RG (Nadal) - 17.0
2007 AO (Federer) - 17.9
2006 RG (Nadal) - 18.2
2005 WI (Federer) - 19.0
10 slams won by Big3 with the lowest ranked opponents
2017 UO (Nadal) - 56.5
2006 AO (Federer) - 38.6
2010 RG (Nadal) - 37.8
2004 WI (Federer) - 36.2
2004 AO (Federer) - 34.8
2018 AO (Federer) - 33.6
2003 WI (Federer) - 31.6
2019 WI (Djokovic) - 31.4
2007 UO (Federer) - 30.6
2008 UO (Federer) - 30.8
Are you implying that rafa is unable to reproduce?Children adjusted by difficulty:-
Federer 3.2
Djokovic 5
Nadal 7.7 billion
It astonishes me how an objective thread like this with a pertinent premise can be so upsetting. People here literally want to 1984-style outlaw any kind of discussion which casts doubt on Federer's legacy.
The average used is the geometric mean, which gives a big weight to small numbers, therefore to high ranked opponents.So,
If I face and beat world no. 3 in the QF, world no. 2 in the SF, world no.1 in the F en route to my slam title, Lew will mark it as one of the least difficult slam won, just because of the qualifier/lucky loser/wildcard world no. 330 I faced in the 1R and world no. 90 in the 2R, which brings down the average rank of players beaten to win the slam at approximately 60 to 65.
You should've turned pro and beaten all these weak era scrubs and become a legend since you make it sound like it's a big joke. LOL2004 Wimbledon
2003 Wimbledon
2006 Australian Open
2004 Australian Open
2004 US Open
2005 Wimbledon
These are the six weakest slams won by any of the big three based on elo/strength of tournament. Additionally, the adjusted slam count is currently as follows:
1 ESP Rafael Nadal 20.58 19 2 SUI Roger Federer 19.44 20 3 SRB Novak Djokovic 18.11 16
Grampa Federer is the reason your precious little Rafa got his #1 ranking. Federer went and did what your beloved Rafa could never do. Show respectIt astonishes me how an objective thread like this with a pertinent premise can be so upsetting. People here literally want to 1984-style outlaw any kind of discussion which casts doubt on Federer's legacy.
It astonishes me how an objective thread like this with a pertinent premise can be so upsetting. People here literally want to 1984-style outlaw any kind of discussion which casts doubt on Federer's legacy.
2004 AO, 2004 Wimb and 2004 USO weak, LMAO
I love you TTW!
Elo sez 6-3 6-2 6-3 RAFA is stronk 'cause previous results and didn't drop a set therefore goat. Elo sez 6-3 2-6 7-5 3-6 6-3 Agassi is weak 'cause previous results and only a QF therefore woat. All hail elo.
What a terrible thought!somewhere in a parallel universe, there is a TTW forum, where people appreciate the greatest players without trying to debate on the weak field, moral winner and other BS
He can make up for that by backhanding one teenager2004 Wimbledon
2003 Wimbledon
2006 Australian Open
2004 Australian Open
2004 US Open
2005 Wimbledon
These are the six weakest slams won by any of the big three based on elo/strength of tournament. Additionally, the adjusted slam count is currently as follows:
1 ESP Rafael Nadal 20.58 19 2 SUI Roger Federer 19.44 20 3 SRB Novak Djokovic 18.11 16
07 is stronger than 08 for the number 1.Is the 04-07 weak era concept as genuine as it seems?
It's Elo, not ELO!
holy ****, that's actually a shirt for me
He can make up for that by backhanding one teenager
Cilic in the final put up a better fight then any of Nadal’s USO opponents... ever.Hilarious that this thread is sacrilegious to some while the same stale posters keep trying to force a Berritini meme. As if Federer's Berdych-CHUNG-Cilic run isn't infinitely more embarrassing for tennis. There just aren't any Nadal fans mentally ill enough to force meme it ad nauseum.
Cilic did beat No. 1 Nadal in SF I thought.....Wait was the fakebull injured already??Cilic in the final put up a better fight then any of Nadal’s USO opponents... ever.
The only thing stale I see is yet another attempt at a weak era thread.Hilarious that this thread is sacrilegious to some while the same stale posters keep trying to force a Berritini meme. As if Federer's Berdych-CHUNG-Cilic run isn't infinitely more embarrassing for tennis. There just aren't any Nadal fans mentally ill enough to force meme it ad nauseum.
Would you be here if not for Federer?It astonishes me how an objective thread like this with a pertinent premise can be so upsetting. People here literally want to 1984-style outlaw any kind of discussion which casts doubt on Federer's legacy.
While I don’t like this thread, you have a bit of a point here.There has been a lot more Nadal bashing threads lately which gets ignored. Federer fans should be able to endure this thread.
Any examples?There has been a lot more Nadal bashing threads lately which gets ignored. Federer fans should be able to endure this thread.
Are you suggesting that Nadal is not a cyclist?This one created by yourself
Would you be here if not for Federer?
Right.
Federer's legacy defines you, sir.
Berrettini: 'Everybody Would Like To Beat Me'2019 USO has ELO over 9000 and 8500 from Berrettini alone.
Did you know Philippoussis defeated an ATG in that Wimby on his way to the final? Did you know Scud was actually a very good grass-court player (when he was switched on)? I don't think so! I can guess what you do know....and that is, how great a player Anderson is!Completely incorrect. Roger Federer's 2028 ELO in 2003 Wimbledon is the weakest of the big three while Nadal's personal weakest is Roland Garros 2005.
They can now declare the tournament winner at the time of the draw, based on projected elo. Actual matches don't count.2004 Wimbledon
2003 Wimbledon
2006 Australian Open
2004 Australian Open
2004 US Open
2005 Wimbledon
These are the six weakest slams won by any of the big three based on elo/strength of tournament. Additionally, the adjusted slam count is currently as follows:
1 ESP Rafael Nadal 20.58 19 2 SUI Roger Federer 19.44 20 3 SRB Novak Djokovic 18.11 16
Match and tournament wins are an old school metric. Algorithms are the future of tennis.ELO is the worst metric to evaluate tennis so this is meaningless
2004 AO is one of the toughest slams won by big 3. 2004 Wimbledon was strong too, taking out Hewitt and Roddick back to back.6 slams of Big3 with highest ranked opponents
2013 RG (Nadal) - 12.4
2011 AO (Djokovic) - 13.4
2016 AO (Djokovic) - 15.1
2013 AO (Djokovic) - 15.3
2010 AO (Federer) - 16.2
2015 WI (Djokovic) - 16.9
6 slams of Big3 with lowest ranked opponents
2017 UO (Nadal) - 56.5
2006 AO (Federer) - 38.6
2010 RG (Nadal) - 37.8
2004 WI (Federer) - 36.2
2004 AO (Federer) - 34.8
2018 AO (Federer) - 33.6
Not one of the strongest AO 2004 due to the final. Maybe Wimbeldon 2004 was.2004 AO is one of the toughest slams won by big 3. 2004 Wimbledon was strong too, taking out Hewitt and Roddick back to back.
Yep. Here we go again.
Fed is old, but not that old!
The only other slams I’d have above it are 2011 USO and 2012/2017 AO.Not one of the strongest AO 2004 due to the final. Maybe Wimbeldon 2004 was.
Ferrero went away in straights giving fight in 2 sets. Hewitt was good but nothing super and Federer was a bit more off in the Nalbandian match combined with Nalbandian playing well. Safin was done in the final compared to the 2 rounds before but he did put up some sort of a fight.The only other slams I’d have above it are 2011 USO and 2012/2017 AO.
Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Safin in succession is a strong draw.