Win rate in the year by Big3's Slam final opponents

[Nadalgaenger]

FEDERER

2003 Philippoussis win percentage 65.5%
2004 Safin 69.3
2004 Roddick 80.4
2004 Hewitt 79.1
2005 Roddick 80.8
2005 Agassi 76.0
2006 Baghdatis 64.9
2006 Nadal 83.1
2006 Roddick 72.1
2007 Gonzalez 61.7
2007 Nadal 82.4
2007 Djokovic 78.2
2008 Murray 78.4
2009 Soderling 68.7
2009 Roddick 76.2
2010 Murray 71.9
2012 Murray 77.8
2017 Nadal 85.9
2017 Cilic 66.7
2018 Cilic 68.8

average 74.4

NADAL

2005 Puerta 58.7
2006 Federer 94.8
2007 Federer 88.3
2008 Federer 81.5
2008 Federer 81.5
2009 Federer 83.6
2010 Soderling 72.2
2010 Berdych 63.4
2010 Djokovic 77.2
2011 Federer 84.2
2012 Djokovic 86.2
2013 Ferrer 71.4
2013 Djokovic 89.2
2014 Djokovic 88.4
2017 Wawrinka 70.3
2017 Anderson 60.4
2018 Thiem 73.0
2019 Thiem 72.7
2019 Medvedev 73.8
2020 Djokovic 89.1

average 78.0

DJOKOVIC

2008 Tsonga 70.8
2011 Murray 81.2
2011 Nadal 82.1
2011 Nadal 82.1
2012 Nadal 87.5
2013 Murray 84.3
2014 Federer 85.9
2015 Murray 83.5
2015 Federer 85.1
2015 Federer 85.1
2016 Murray 89.7
2016 Murray 89.7
2018 Anderson 71.2
2018 Del Potro 78.3
2019 Nadal 89.1
2019 Federer 83.6
2020 Thiem 73.5

average 82.5

Murray had an 89% win percentage???

 

[Lew II]

Easiest SF + F combo:

2006 WI Federer beat Bjorkman 40.6 and Nadal 83.1 = average 61.8
2004 AO Federer beat Ferrero 59.0 and Safin 69.3 = average 64.1
2006 AO Federer beat Kiefer 63.6 and Baghdatis 64.9 = average 64.2
2008 WI Nadal beat Schuettler 47.7 and Federer 81.5 = average 64.6
2018 AO Federer beat Chung 61.7 and Cilic 68.8 68.0 = average 65.2
2017 UO Nadal beat Del Potro 70.4 and Anderson 60.4 = average 65.4
2017 WI Federer beat Berdych 66.0 and Cilic 66.7 = average 66.3
2017 RG Nadal beat Thiem 63.5 and Wawrinka 70.3 = average 66.9
2010 WI Nadal beat Murray 71.9 and Berdych 63.4 = average 67.6
2019 UO Nadal beat Berrettini 63.2 and Medvedev 73.8 = average 68.5
2010 AO Federer beat Tsonga 66.0 and Murray 71.9 = average 68.9
2007 AO Federer beat Roddick 77.1 and Gonzalez 61.7 = average 69.4
2009 WI Federer beat Haas 64.6 and Roddick 74.2 = average 69.4

No Djokovic He doesn't no what winning easy means.

 

[Towny]

The fact that Federer at Wimbledon 2008 is part of one of the 'easiest' SF and F combinations according to this system tells you all you need to know about its validity.

 

[Deleted member 775898]

Easiest SF + F combo:

2006 WI Federer beat Bjorkman 40.6 and Nadal 83.1 = average 61.8
2004 AO Federer beat Ferrero 59.0 and Safin 69.3 = average 64.1
2006 AO Federer beat Kiefer 63.6 and Baghdatis 64.9 = average 64.2
2008 WI Nadal beat Schuettler 47.7 and Federer 81.5 = average 64.6
2018 AO Federer beat Chung 61.7 and Cilic 68.8 68.0 = average 65.2
2017 UO Nadal beat Del Potro 70.4 and Anderson 60.4 = average 65.4
2017 WI Federer beat Berdych 66.0 and Cilic 66.7 = average 66.3
2017 RG Nadal beat Thiem 63.5 and Wawrinka 70.3 = average 66.9
2010 WI Nadal beat Murray 71.9 and Berdych 63.4 = average 67.6
2019 UO Nadal beat Berrettini 63.2 and Medvedev 73.8 = average 68.5
2010 AO Federer beat Tsonga 66.0 and Murray 71.9 = average 68.9
2007 AO Federer beat Roddick 77.1 and Gonzalez 61.7 = average 69.4
2009 WI Federer beat Haas 64.6 and Roddick 74.2 = average 69.4

No Djokovic He doesn't no what winning easy means.

Lew just confirmed Rafa had an easier time winning Wimbledon08 than USO17 .

 

[abmk]

Lew just confirmed Rafa had an easier time winning Wimbledon08 than USO17 .

 

[Lew II]

The fact that Federer at Wimbledon 2008 is part of one of the 'easiest' SF and F combinations according to this system tells you all you need to know about its validity.

Win percentage is often mentioned as a great achievement for Federer but when it comes to his opponents it becomes meaningless?

 

[Towny]

Win percentage is often mentioned as a great achievement for Federer but when it comes to his opponents it becomes meaningless?

I've seen win percentage used more as an apologetic for Djokovic and Nadal than for Federer, at least in recent years. In any case, it can be a useful stat but context is king. It matters what surface the match is on. It matters what their form in the tournament was. Plus YE win percentage isn't always helpful. Take Ferrero at the AO 2004. He'd just come off a decent 2003 in which he won RG and was ranked number 3. That was the Ferrero Federer faced at the AO. The rest of his 2004 was afflicted by injuries which significantly lowered his win percentage. 59% win percentage is not an accurate marker of how he was playing at the AO. There are other things to say but that's just for starters.

 

[abmk]

I've seen win percentage used more as an apologetic for Djokovic and Nadal than for Federer, at least in recent years. In any case, it can be a useful stat but context is king. It matters what surface the match is on. It matters what their form in the tournament was. Plus YE win percentage isn't always helpful. Take Ferrero at the AO 2004. He'd just come off a decent 2003 in which he won RG and was ranked number 3. That was the Ferrero Federer faced at the AO. The rest of his 2004 was afflicted by injuries which significantly lowered his win percentage. 59% win percentage is not an accurate marker of how he was playing at the AO. There are other things to say but that's just for starters.

2003 was more than decent for Ferrero.
he had also made the final of US Open beating Hewitt and Agassi on the way.
Also won Monte Carlo and Madrid (indoor HC) masters in 2003.
Reached #1 ranking in Sep 2003.

 

[Lew II]

I've seen win percentage used more as an apologetic for Djokovic and Nadal than for Federer, at least in recent years. In any case, it can be a useful stat but context is king. It matters what surface the match is on. It matters what their form in the tournament was. Plus YE win percentage isn't always helpful. Take Ferrero at the AO 2004. He'd just come off a decent 2003 in which he won RG and was ranked number 3. That was the Ferrero Federer faced at the AO. The rest of his 2004 was afflicted by injuries which significantly lowered his win percentage. 59% win percentage is not an accurate marker of how he was playing at the AO. There are other things to say but that's just for starters.

No system is flawless.

 

[Towny]

No system is flawless.

Some are clearly more flawed than others though

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Why is win percentage over the whole season suddenly the most important metric when it suits OP?

1. McEnroe 1984 96.5%
2. Connors 1974 95.9%
3. Federer 2005 95.3%
4. Federer 2006 94.8%
5. Borg 1979 93.3%
6. Djokovic 2015 93.2%
7. Lendl 1986/Federer 2004 92.5%
9. Lendl 1985 92.3%
10. Lendl 1982 92.2%

Fedr GOAT, no?

(Or maybe Mac?)

95% , 95% and 93% etc. are all too close.

82.5% and 74% is a much bigger margin. This also explains why one ended up with 95% and the other at 93%. One had a relatively stronger field to play against

 

[blablavla]

No system is flawless.

The key flaw in any system is the human component.
And some are much more flawed than others.

 

[BackhandDTL]

hardest combo SF + F

2006 RG Nadal beat Ljubicic (75.0) and Federer (95.8) = average 84.9
2012 RG Nadal beat Ferrer (83.5) and Djokovic (86.2) average 84.8
2007 RG Nadal beat Djokovic (78.2) and Federer (88.3) = average 83.2
2011 UO Djokovic beat Federer (84.2) and Nadal (82.1) = average 83.1
2011 RG Nadal beat Murray (81.2) and Federer (84.2) = average 82.7
2011 AO Djokovic beat Federer (84.2) and Murray (81.2) = average 82.7
2012 AO Djokovic beat Murray (77.8) and Nadal (87.5) = average 82.6
2016 AO Djokovic beat Federer (75.0) and Murray (89.7) = average 82.3

Federer nowhere to be seen.

Epic

 

[mike danny]

2003 was more than decent for Ferrero.
he had also made the final of US Open beating Hewitt and Agassi on the way.
Also won Monte Carlo and Madrid (indoor HC) masters in 2003.
Reached #1 ranking in Sep 2003.

That's better than Thiem's 2020, but we know the usual suspects will still say Ferrero was a weakling.

 

[mike danny]

95% , 95% and 93% etc. are all too close.

82.5% and 74% is a much bigger margin. This also explains why one ended up with 95% and the other at 93%. One had a relatively stronger field to play against

If you mean 2015 for Djokovic compared to Fed's seasons, then no.

 

[Milanez82]

Wins over the two other Wimbledon SF'ists at Queens, a win over Hewitt who returned to the top 10 the next week (and was the only person other than Roddick to take a set from Federer all grass season). Yes Roddick's grass court swing in 2004 was good stuff. The top five grass players in 2004 were Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Grosjean and Ancic - Roddick had four wins over that group in 2004. He was over 80% on HC as well BTW. His win/loss record on clay is more important than that? lol.

Congrats on exposing yourself though lol.

Exposing to wha

The fact that Federer at Wimbledon 2008 is part of one of the 'easiest' SF and F combinations according to this system tells you all you need to know about its validity.

Stats can always be used to push an agenda

 

[blablavla]

Exposing to wha

exposing to the fact that you don't know much tennis history, and just like some other posters here try to cherry pick stats to push an agenda.

 

[NatF]

Exposing to wha
Stats can always be used to push an agenda

Agenda, lack of ability to form a coherent argument etc...take your pick lol.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I'm disappointed that my accurate Federer's list was deleted for some reason.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Not sure why I'm commenting (and as always, I represent only my own honest opinions).
Lew's stats are objective, but they are highly selective.
So, I would ask this (without naming any players):
On the one hand, how important is this stat and what does it "prove"?
And conversely, without mentioning names, why do you think this stat is meaningless or possibly misleading?

Those who know me know that I don't care for terms like 'weak era" or "vulturing"; the first one demeans a lot of players, and the second one is, frankly, kind of stupid. You win what titles you can.

If the totality of this set of numbers is to show that - on average - Novak and Rafa had tougher roads to winning their "slams" than Roger did, then I guess it has some value within that context. To me, it's a stronger argument than the eye test or "Djokodal had no younger ATGs chasing them."
On the other side, is the best opposing argument to this particular stat that there was more depth on the tour at given times, or that the stat did not consider surface? I don't know.
I don't believe in explaining away achievements, and winning a slam is always a big deal --it's just that these guys have made it look so easy.

Again, there is almost nothing to separate the Big 3 in ability or accomplishments. They each have the numbers and the narratives to prove their greatness.
When they all are retired, if one is considered a little greater than the other two (either by consensus or an objective reading of the stats), fine.

 

[Milanez82]

Agenda, lack of ability to form a coherent argument etc...take your pick lol.

Basing something on a sample of two tournaments is what you call coherent and sound?
Sign me up to your lalala land so i can get a degree too

 

[NatF]

Basing something on a sample of two tournaments is what you call coherent and sound?
Sign me up to your lalala land so i can get a degree too

Wimbledon and the premier warm-up Queens aren't enough to demonstrate form? Nevermind that Roddick was undefeated on grass for three years from 03-05 outside his Wimbledon meetings with Federer ergo he had a 90+% win/loss over three years.

Like I said, keep exposing yourself.

 

[mike danny]

Basing something on a sample of two tournaments is what you call coherent and sound?
Sign me up to your lalala land so i can get a degree too

Well, please tell me a better way to judge someone's form on grass. I'm all ears.

 

[blablavla]

Well, please tell me a better way to judge someone's form on grass. I'm all ears.

let's take their winning % on clay, and just assume that there is no difference between clay and grass

 

[Gazelle]

Slam finals won against players that had >80% of wins in the year:

Djokovic 13
Nadal 10
Federer 5

Slam finals won against players that had <70% of wins in the year:

Federer 7
Nadal 3
Djokovic 0

Poor Djokovic couldn't win once against the weaker opposition.