Slam score vs #1

[Lew II]

Slam score against the #1 (4+ Slam winners listed):

Sampras 2-1 (66.7%)
Becker 5-3 (62.5%)
Nadal 9-6 (60%)
Wilander 4-3 (57.1%)
Borg 3-3 (50%)
Rosewall 2-2 (50%)
Newcombe / Vilas 1-1 (50%)
Lendl 4-5 (44.4%)
Djokovic 3-5 (37.5%)
Courier 3-6 (33.3%)
McEnroe 3-7 (30%)
Edberg 2-6 (25%)
Agassi 2-9 (18.2%)
Connors 1-6 (14.3%)
Federer 1-9 (10%)

 

[Lew II]

Federer has the worst score among ATGs.

Wins:

WI12 vs Djokovic

Losses:

AO09 vs Nadal
RG11 vs Nadal
UO11 vs Djokovic
RG12 vs Djokovic
AO14 vs Nadal
WI15 vs Djokovic
UO15 vs Djokovic
AO16 vs Djokovic
WI19 vs Djokovic

 

[BackhandRF]

Federer has the worst score among ATGs.

Wins:

WI12 vs Djokovic

Losses:

AO09 vs Nadal
RG11 vs Nadal
UO11 vs Djokovic
RG12 vs Djokovic
AO14 vs Nadal
WI15 vs Djokovic
UO15 vs Djokovic
AO16 vs Djokovic
WI19 vs Djokovic

Yeah yeah.
Losing to chung, istomin, querry, cechhinato, melzer etc is better than losing to #1.

 

[ChrisRF]

You should include matches against #2 if the player was #1 himself. Otherwise for example Federer is punished for consistently being #1 during 2004-2008. He couldn’t play against himself, so his total dominance actually made sure he couldn’t improve in this statistic.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I'm really surprised that the GOAT is the last on that list.

 

[Lew II]

You should include matches against #2 if the player was #1 himself. Otherwise for example Federer is punished for consistently being #1 during 2004-2008. He couldn’t play against himself, so his total dominance actually made sure he couldn’t improve in this statistic.

Playing the #1 is different from playing the #2 while being #1.

In the first case you're the underdog. In the second you're the favourite

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Playing the #1 is different from playing the #2 while being #1.

In the first case you're the underdog. In the second you're the favourite

Was Federer the favourite going into the match against Djokovic at RG 2011?

 

[aldeayeah]

So today is Fed bashing day, uh? Makes sense, yesterday was that thread with the Nadal Wimbledon losses.

Precise like a clock, predictable as the sunset, insidious as water torture.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

@Lew II

 

[Lew II]

Yeah yeah.
Losing to chung, istomin, querry, cechhinato, melzer etc is better than losing to #1.

Djokovic has a better win percentage than Federer against non-Big3.

 

[BackhandRF]

Djokovic has a better win percentage than Federer against non-Big3.

Age advantage.
Not a single ATG level young player from 3 successive generations. Roger had rafa ever since 24 yo age (2005) and nole since 26 yo age (2007).
Whom does nole have?? Dimitrov?? Raonic?? Zverev??? Fognini????? Nishikori????
ROFLMAO...

 

[MichaelNadal]

Slam score against the #1 (4+ Slam winners listed):


Federer 1-9 (10%)

 

[weakera]

Interesting

 

[mike danny]

@Lew II

LOL, this should be posted in every Lew thread. Brilliant.

 

[Third Serve]

So today is Fed bashing day, uh? Makes sense, yesterday was that thread with the Nadal Wimbledon losses.

Precise like a clock, predictable as the sunset, insidious as water torture.

Mind if I save this one?

 

[aldeayeah]

Mind if I save this one?

Sure, suit yourself! I won't be doing much more replying to Lew anyway - he has just become the second inhabitant of my ignore list. Not because he particularly aggravates me, but because he's so dull/spammy.

 

[RS]

I like the way you choose 4 time slam as a cutoff

 

[Lew II]

I like the way you choose 4 time slam as a cutoff

Murray has a better score than Federer: 2-12.

I cut at 4 because Jan Kodes is 0-2

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I cut at 4 because Jan Kodes is 0-2

You are not very good at not telling the truth.

 

[Lew II]

You are not very good at not telling the truth.

What is wrong with it? I'm comparing Federer to his peers.

99% of tennis players never beat the #1.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What is wrong with it? I'm comparing Federer to his peers.

99% of tennis players never beat the #1.

So, you constructed the argument exclusively around Federer?

 

[Lew II]

So, you constructed the argument exclusively around Federer?

Yes, Sherlock.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yes, Sherlock.

Oh dear!

BTW, if you wanted to compare Federer "to his peers" you wouldn't have set a special requirement that excludes many of his peers in that comparison, so, like I said, you are not very good at not telling the truth.

 

[travlerajm]

Playing the #1 is different from playing the #2 while being #1.

In the first case you're the underdog. In the second you're the favourite

Good comeback.

 

[Amritia]

Lew is a good example actually of how selectively filtering statistics can lead to misleading conclusions.

 

[aditya123]

Lew is a good example actually of how selectively filtering statistics can lead to misleading conclusions.

Agreed. This stat favours my Favourite player but still Lew is an idi..t of a person

 

[Born_to_slice]

Lew is a good example actually of how selectively filtering statistics can lead to misleading conclusions.