What does it mean to say that Nadal faced 0.11 more top 5 players than Federer per GS? You haven't given us any reason why we should care about these statistics.
Especially since they tell us nothing about players outside the top 5 (is it 'better' to beat 2 players ranked 6 vs. 1 player ranked 5?), and because they tell us nothing about players' form. Maybe if this thread had any kind of analysis, it might not be totally worthless.
How bout I post the career resumes of every single player they have ever faced (and every player that THEY'VE ever faced) so we can be as thorough as possible, huh?
They've all played shitty seeded opponents and they've all played in-form unseeded opponents. This isn't just exclusive to Federer. So let's just ignore that please. If anything, comparing the actual top 5 opponents would be more beneficial.
And yes, I arbitrarily drew the line at top 5. I could just as easily ask you is it better to beat 2 players ranked top 7 vs. 1 player ranked top 6 and could go on and on until we're talking about a player ranked No. 300 so let's just leave it at top 5, OK? When you think "Top 5", you don't think "untalented clowns" do you? So it's not like I'm trying to disingenuously create a group of guys to suit a particular agenda or something.
Originally Posted by kingiskingfineon
whats wrong with giving numbers .I believe he needs to give it for the top 8 but still 12 slam difference screws the numbers
It's in the OP: "Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins
[vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins
[vs. Nadal's 13]."
Useless thread by a bored noletroll.
Only relevant thing to the History books is:
You are free to create a "This is the number of slams Novak, Rafa, and Roger have" thread, BTW