Normalised Slam record service

It's interesting that some of the current players have an odd distribution of Slam wins which makes it tricky to compare the magnitude of their achievements, great as they all are.

I therefore present a sensible and balanced scheme to apply to Slam wins, based on the following;

Australian: a great tournament and worthy Slam event, it recovered after being an optional event 30 years ago. Not exactly steeped in history but a top event. Slam weight : 1.

US Open: in contrast this event has slightly lost its way, but has incredible history. Slam weight : 1.6

French: self-consciously trying to rebrand as Roland Garros to emulate that which is to come, but it retains great value as the sole representative of the important clay surface. I think it's moved to #2 status. Slam weight : 1.7

Wimbledon: obviously the great tournament of all, it has everything from history, surface, everything. The one the players all want. Slam weight : a miserly 2

So the corrected Slam count of the current top guys is;

Federer: (7*2) + (1*1.7) + (5*1.6) + (4*1) = 27.7

Nadal: (2*2) + (8*1.7) + (1*1.6) + (1*1) = 20.2

Djokovic: (1*2) + (1*1.6) + (4*1) = 7.6

Murray: (1*1.6) + (1*2) = 3.6


I think this about right. I'm prepared to listen to arguments that I've underestimated the value of Wimbledon, or the USO / French order. Nothing is perfect.

No, I think this is frankly silly.
At the moment all the top players give all the slams huge huge importance.
So when we are comparing the top guys of today, we have to take this into account.

A little bit of satire to liven up a Sunday?

Or a lot of satire?

I'm tempted to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes a lot of players say that Wimbledon is special but how many of them are saying that when they are playing there and go around the slams saying the politically correct things at each one.

The AO seems to have the best atmosphere, the US one probably the best hot dogs, Wimbledon the most history and the French the most biased crowd.

One thing I'll say about the AO - too many bloody advertisement hordings.

newballs wrote:the US one probably the best hot dogs

You can't compare hot dogs to strawberries and cream. I think the USO just went down 0.2 on the scale for that reason.

I dunno, you work your fingers to the bone and what thanks do you get?

The realisation of this insight came to me when we were discussing Roddicks career sans Federer, and I realised he'd have had 4 Wimbledons. This is such a great achievement that I naturally saw the value in this formula, as it would tower above four of another Slam.

If anyone thinks I've got the numbers slightly wrong then please shout, but nothing is more than a point out I think.

Or he would get beaten in the final by another true great. Why do you assume Roddick would have won all four of those finals if not for federer?

bogbrush wrote:If anyone thinks I've got the numbers slightly wrong then please shout

YOU'VE GOT THE NUMBERS WRONG!!!!!

JHM what have you got against hot dogs? Also have you tried the food at Wimbledon? Overpriced and pretty poor.

socal1976 wrote:Or he would get beaten in the final by another true great. Why do you assume Roddick would have won all four of those finals if not for federer?

I think it's a fair estimate, I might accept a downgrade to three for sake of argument. That's still massive though, right up there in McEnroe territory.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:If anyone thinks I've got the numbers slightly wrong then please shout

YOU'VE GOT THE NUMBERS SLIGHTLY WRONG!!!!!

Corrected

Yeah, a downgrade to three, the guy who choked away a wimbeldon on the biggest gimme backhand volley in history in the same league as Mccenroe. Ok BB you are entitled to your opinion, amigo.

You've definitely got the numbers wrong.

The last timeI looked one slam win was one win not 1.6 wins or 2.00 wins.

Craig, you forgot to shout.

Is this the new math they are teaching you guys in England? Was this Cameron's idea?

CaledonianCraig wrote:You've definitely got the numbers wrong.

The last timeI looked one slam win was one win not 1.6 wins or 2.00 wins.

Not at all; would you seriously suggest Andy would be as happy to win the AO as Wimbledon? The players all recognise the pre-eminence of the Purple and Green. Don't be frightened to court controversy in the cause of historical accuracy.

I'm beginning to think Wimbledon should be 2.5 but I'll leave it as is, as a compromise.

And would you say Leyton Hewitt would rather win Australian Open or Wimbledon, would Jo Tsonga rather win the Frech Open than Wimbledon and John Isner rather win the US Open than Wimbledon. Face it - one slam win is one slam win or does 1.6 mean they have to play .6 of more matches to win it?

They'd all love Wimbledon first and foremost, even regardless of nationality (which of course is not relevant to this system).

It's THE event.

I don't think they'd all love Wimby more - Agassi didn't even bother to show up for a while, neither did a lot of the clay courters.
Wimby isn't any more difficult to win than the others.

It appears my system is being disputed

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/05/30/what-is-the-most-prestigious-grand-slam-tennis-tournament/

I may have got the US and French wrong, but I stand by my assessment.

bogbrush wrote:They'd all love Wimbledon first and foremost, even regardless of nationality.

It's THE event. You know it.

Nope. One slam win is one slam win. Or else should we all start making up our own gauges to suit. Perhaps US Open should be most points as it has the biggest stadia, perhaps the French Open should be lowest for the most obnoxious fans or Australia get higher points for accumulative miles the players have travelled to play there and Wimbledon totally asterisked for Hawkeye's benefit over Rosol result.

One slam means one win.

Our analysts here at TME headquarters are stunned by your misguided faith in the 'Dirty Slam' - the French Open. Given the appalling honor roll at 'Roland Garros' and the irrelevance of the surface on which the title is contested, we have assigned it a score of 'zero'.

The 'Noisy Slam' - the US Open, with its honour roll of tennis greats (with the exception of R. Nadal - 2010) and position as premier hard court slam, is worthy of a Slam Score of 'five'.

Melbourne's 'Happy Slam' brings joy to many, and thanks to the efforts of Federer in recent times, now has a history to go with its smiles. We grant it a score of 'three'.

The 'Snooty Slam': The Slamdaddy itself, Wimbledon - with its illustrious lawns and the scenes of Fedmania running wild is thoroughly deserving of its elite status, and Slam Score of 'seven'.

It would also be remiss not mention the ATP World Tour Finals ("Where it all begins again"). It's unique format and season-ending position, mean that The 'Nearly Slam' must be included: a score of 'two' for this one...

The Olympics cannot be forgotten (or forgiven), and as such we will be awarding 3 points for a gold medal, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze. You're welcome Bryan Boys.

Finally, we have no choice but to award aesthetic points, The 'Style Slam', as of course, playing beautifully is the greatest prize of them all. 4 points for The Centurion himself, Roger Federer, 2 for Murray, 1 for Djokovic, -1 for The Pauper.

Thus the true worth of our heroes is:

Federer: (7x7) (5x5) (4x3) (1x0) (6x2) (1x3) (1x4) = 100
Nadal: (2x7) (1x5) (1x3) (7x0) (1x3) (1x -1) = 24
Djokovic: (1x7) (1x5) (4x3) (2x2) (1x1) (1x1) = 30
Murray (1x5) (1x3) (1x2) (1x2) = 12

BB, see what you've started? Now everybody thinks they're amusing.

Craig, there are times when I suspect you are no fan of tennis but rather merely a Scottish fanatic who votes SNP ad has a poster of Alex Salmond hugging brave Andy. This is one of those moments.

I'm pleased TME Collective accepts the inherent logic of my system; I left out sub-Slam events as only useful in tie breaking. I also disagree on the dirty Slam; though not my cup of tea I am broad minded and open to alternative ideas (take note, Craig). However there is room for almost all opinion, unless it flies n the face of all obvious logic, like Craig's.

Ooooh is there a need for the personal insults BB? Disappointing that just because I do not agree with your opinion (don't see many others that do either).

I agree that the Australian Open is the least, and Wimbledon the highest, but there is little between them. I'd say if Wimbledon is a 2, then FO and US are probably 1.9 and Australian Open a 1.8 or 1.7.

Then again, maybe you're just trying to wind up Socal. I can't tell to be honest.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ooooh is there a need for the personal insults BB? Disappointing that just because I do not agree with your opinion (don't see many others that do either).

There is broad consensus that I've got this about right. TME lads and I disagree on the French, but there is room enough for sensible diverse opinion.

Whether or not people agree with you was there any need for the catty insult (which was off the mark anyway)?

Henman Bill wrote:I agree that the Australian Open is the least, and Wimbledon the highest, but there is little between them. I'd say if Wimbledon is a 2, then FO and US are probably 1.9 and Australian Open a 1.8 or 1.7.

Then again, maybe you're just trying to wind up Socal. I can't tell to be honest.

4 Wimbledons = just 5 Australians?

A sad day.

Henman Bill wrote:I agree that the Australian Open is the least, and Wimbledon the highest, but there is little between them. I'd say if Wimbledon is a 2, then FO and US are probably 1.9 and Australian Open a 1.8 or 1.7.

Then again, maybe you're just trying to wind up Socal. I can't tell to be honest.

Oh Henman Bill you know Mr. Grinch is trying to steal my christmas, but Socal already got his gift delivered in 4 sets by the serbian magician, no fat man in a beard needed.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Whether or not people agree with you was there any need for the catty insult (which was off the mark anyway)?

I take back that you vote SNP. I realise such an accusation is beyond the pale. My sincerest apologies.

Accepted.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Accepted.

Wonderful to see Craig accepts the mechanism in the article.

I think the forum has uniquely reached unanimity on this important matter.

Personally for me Wimbledon, Roland Garros or US Open are of the same prestige.

Australian Open is a little behind.

I consider Wimbledon as worth 2 Australian Opens.

I don't think anyone will agree, but that's just me.

I think everyone accepts the W= 2 AO relationship, that's pretty much beyond question.

That's controversial on equality elsewhere, Gerry. I fear you maybe pressed to defend your position.

How about the 2 Wimbledons = 1 French Open?

bogbrush wrote:I think everyone accepts the W= 2 AO relationship, that's pretty much beyond question.

That's controversial on equality elsewhere, Gerry. I fear you maybe pressed to defend your position.

Sampras and Federer won 7 Wimbledons.

Wimbledon, for many including me, is the holy grail.

Even look at Nadal, after he won his first 4 RG titles, he was desperate for the Wimbledon title.

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about the 2 Wimbledons = 1 French Open?

A respectable opinion, but not one I endorse. I may have underrated Wimbledon, I am haunted by the sense that 2.5 would be more accurate, with the others correct. Do you agree?

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about the 2 Wimbledons = 1 French Open?

You could claim that

Seeing as two players have won 7 Wimbledon's but only won has 7 RGs(in the open era)

Gerry SA wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about the 2 Wimbledons = 1 French Open?

You could claim that

Seeing as two players have won 7 Wimbledon's but only won has 7 RGs(in the open era)

It's only to be expected, given that the very best base their entire year around Wimbledon.

I misread lk post. Obviously he's just having his little joke, nobody even in the French Tennis Federation would dream such an absurdity.

bogbrush wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about the 2 Wimbledons = 1 French Open?

You could claim that

Seeing as two players have won 7 Wimbledon's but only won has 7 RGs(in the open era)

It's only to be expected, given that the very best base their entire year around Wimbledon.

I misread lk post. Obviously he's just having his little joke, nobody even in the French Tennis Federation would dream such an absurdity.

I was joking mate, forgot to add a smiley before I replied

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:You've definitely got the numbers wrong.

The last timeI looked one slam win was one win not 1.6 wins or 2.00 wins.

Not at all; would you seriously suggest Andy would be as happy to win the AO as Wimbledon? The players all recognise the pre-eminence of the Purple and Green. Don't be frightened to court controversy in the cause of historical accuracy.

I'm beginning to think Wimbledon should be 2.5 but I'll leave it as is, as a compromise.

Couldn't agree more regarding the pre-eminence of Wimbledon, there's no doubt it's the one every tennis player wants and desires most. Look at what both Nadal and Djokovic did after firmly securing what I call their 'fiefdom' slam. Nadal made Wimbledon his No.1 priority after winning RG twice by Wimbledon 2006 and lost the final then and again in 2007 but eventually got it in 2008. There's no doubt from his autobiography, Wimbledon is the special one. Regarding Djokovic, despite his brilliant hard court pedigree, what did Djokovic say after winning the Aussie Open in 2011? Wimbledon is the goal. I remember reading it on the BBC website and thinking, he's getting ahead of himself, he's never been in the Wimbledon final, he should prioritise the USO (he'd been in 2 finals there already). When he won Wimbledon though, I thought to myself, okay, this man is no Djoko anymore, he can be one of the greats. That's what Wimbledon does!

I broadly concur with the OP and add my considerable weight to this new scoring system.

However I believe a further principle must also be considered - the manner in which the slam was one.

That's right. Was it won with brilliance and virtuosity or was it won with something less?

Thus an additional point for virtuosity and -3 points for the ultimate in tedium: attritional baseline tennis. Therefore Screech scores -6 for his last two efforts in OZ.



emancipator

I think this is unarguable.

emancipator wrote:....and add my considerable weight to this new scoring system.

New Year's diet not paying off?

bogbrush. I've only just noticed this article as it was hidden behind such a non descriptive title.

All slams are important of course but the pretense that they are all of equal importance is a sort of political correctness gone mad. Still putting a numerical value on each is very brave. It is attempting to quantify historical significance, prestige, aspirations and even dreams. So well done for attempting to tie such things down.

As for the numbers I broadly agree with them. In the spirit of the article I would perhaps go a little further. I would award a bonus for any player to achieve the channel slam. We have been a little spoiled in recent years having two all time greats achieving this remarkable double. 14 slam matches played on two very different surfaces in such a short space of time... and stealing the two biggest slams of the year is an amazing achievement. Maybe the slam points should be doubled for any player who manages this?

I would also be tempted to award style points but admit this would be a little more tricky. But surely both players in the 2008 Wimbledon final won particularly shiny prizes?

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about the 2 Wimbledons = 1 French Open?

I'm not sure about that as both of those trophies look equally shiny to me. But I wonder if Novak would swap 2 or (even 3) of his AO trophies for just one shiny FO title. He is definitely dreaming about it as he kept talking about it even while he was in the process of winning this years AO.

It is rare for the whole forum to unite behind one concept, and I feel humbled at the outpouring of support and gratitude that I've received for this initiative. I will try my best to consider the modifications proposed by other leading forum members and update as decisions are reached.

I imagine the mods will be making this thread a "sticky" and updating the records as we go to reflect this more accurate representation of career achievement.