The logical way to compare the greatest players at the slams

[The_Order]

So many times I see people comparing surface success as if it is like for like... when it's blatantly obvious that it isn't...

You don't compare hc titles with a hc specialist vs a clay specialist... obviously the hc specialist should be stronger in that department...
Just like you don't compare clay titles with a clay specialist vs a hc specialist for the same reason...

Rather, to compare players... look at what surface their game excels at and how well it can be adapted to the surfaces it does not favour...

Of course... this is going to lead to big 3 comparison...

Rafa and Novak are so similar in how they excel at their best surface and then translate success to the other surfaces.

Nadal's best to worst is clay > hc > grass
Novak's best to worst is hc > grass > clay

Now look at their slam title distribution:

Nadal:
14 clay
6 hc
2 grass

Novak:
12 hc
6 grass
2 clay

Nadal has 2 more titles on his best surface but their 2nd and 3rd best surfaces are dead even at this stage...

For Federer it gets interesting. Everybody knows grass is his best surface. But he has not got the domination on grass in terms of titles won at the majors. However, he has made up for that with hc slam wins.

Federer:
8 grass
11 hc
1 clay

So his dominance on his best surface is not like the other 2 on theirs (before you start about 2 hc only 1 grass slam remember Novak has 9 AO titles) but he has to his credit dominated more on the second best surface to make up for that. Unfortunately, his lack of clay slams puts him below the other two who have at least 2 slam titles on their worst surface and in the process also beat the respective "kings" at that slam (Nadal d Fed at Wimbledon and Novak d Nadal at RG).

So to summarize:
Nadal -- Novak -- Federer
14 clay > 12 hc > 8 grass
6 hc = 6 grass < 11 hc
2 grass = 2 clay > 1 clay

Federer is clearly lagging on both best surface slam titles and worst surface slam titles...

 

[roysid]

So many times I see people comparing surface success as if it is like for like... when it's blatantly obvious that it isn't...

You don't compare hc titles with a hc specialist vs a clay specialist... obviously the hc specialist should be stronger in that department...
Just like you don't compare clay titles with a clay specialist vs a hc specialist for the same reason...

Rather, to compare players... look at what surface their game excels at and how well it can be adapted to the surfaces it does not favour...

Of course... this is going to lead to big 3 comparison...

Rafa and Novak are so similar in how they excel at their best surface and then translate success to the other surfaces.

Nadal's best to worst is clay > hc > grass
Novak's best to worst is hc > grass > clay

Now look at their slam title distribution:

Nadal:
14 clay
6 hc
2 grass

Novak:
12 hc
6 grass
2 clay

Nadal has 2 more titles on his best surface but their 2nd and 3rd best surfaces are dead even at this stage...

For Federer it gets interesting. Everybody knows grass is his best surface. But he has not got the domination on grass in terms of titles won at the majors. However, he has made up for that with hc slam wins.

Federer:
8 grass
11 hc
1 clay

So his dominance on his best surface is not like the other 2 on theirs (before you start about 2 hc only 1 grass slam remember Novak has 9 AO titles) but he has to his credit dominated more on the second best surface to make up for that. Unfortunately, his lack of clay slams puts him below the other two who have at least 2 slam titles on their worst surface and in the process also beat the respective "kings" at that slam (Nadal d Fed at Wimbledon and Novak d Nadal at RG).

So to summarize:
Nadal -- Novak -- Federer
14 clay > 12 hc > 8 grass
6 hc = 6 grass < 11 hc
2 grass = 2 clay > 1 clay

Federer is clearly lagging on both best surface slam titles and worst surface slam titles...

Makes some sense to me. Federer has lost 4 finals in his best slam, 3 in 5th set and 1 having mp.
Makes a huge difference

 

[Rajesh.singh]

Federer is clearly lagging on both best surface slam titles and worst surface slam titles...

Not surprising because he allowed Novak and Nadal to beat him on his best surface and yet could not beat Nadal even 1 time on Nadal's best surface.

So assuming Federer did not lose W2008, W2014, W2019, FO2005 and FO2006, he would be having 5 extra slams.

Or maybe if he cannot beat Nadal at FO2006 then could have sneaked in a HC slam somewhere, like say USO2011/AO2009. This would have given him 4-5 more slams and reduced his rivals's by 2-3 each, he would have remained the best.

Surrendering his pet slam and unable to beat opponents on his weakest has cost him.

 

[Jonas78]

There are 2 HC slams each year, and 1 on clay/grass, makes a difference.

 

[junior74]

Career Inflation Era