The Economist: Nadal has more slams

... once you multiply his tally by 1.18 and Federer's by 0.98.  

Proof, if it was needed, that economics is by no means a science.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/draws-tennis

I appear to have reached my article limit! Funny, as I don't recall reading anything from the Economist in a while.

I think it would work better if some of these things had a $1 or $2 a month option. Perhaps for a limited number of articles per month.

I am just not going to pay $5 a month for this, it will add up to hundreds and hundreds over the year, and it's not worth it, but that is about roughly what they all seem to charge.

OK, switched browsers to view, but of a cheat of the system, but hey I am kind of a rebel like that. After adjusting major wins for difficulty, "Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7." OK, so that is clearly a draw, not a win for Nadal. However, this article was written after the US Open last year, so now Federer would be ahead again, probably within the margin for error again.

I think there is a fair argument that Nadal has faced more difficult opponents to win his slams, however rating slams by difficulty will always be subjective. Even if the calculation is precise, the system will be subjective or the metrics used will be. So, little more than fun and games really, as I expect you already realise.

I think the argument that Djokovic deserves a promotion over Sampras is a reasonably good one. Djokovic has faced some difficult draws. But...homegenization of the surfaces! And so the argument goes on forever.

Without reading it this is hokum: revising reality to fit some sort of armchair theory.

The method is a bit vague really. Think their argument would be reversed if calculations were surface based.

Tennis aside, the really depressing thing is methods like this are used to justify economic policy.

Can’t be bothered reading the piece itself, but happy to take HB’s summary as a fair indication of the sort of theory The Economist is attempting to peddle. Obviously this doesn’t ‘prove’ anything at all. Not even remotely.

You can play with statistics, percentages, average weightings etc etc ..... and it all sounds (superficially   ) clever and academically intelligent ; but ultimately is no more useful or conclusive than two guys arguing in a bar at 2am when they’ve already both had a skinful.

Breaking news : we measure sporting achievement by results - not by theories.