You can compare yourself (the numbers don't add up to 100% since I'm excluding the tablet category):

• India: 76.5% mobile, 23% desktop,
• Germany: 51% mobile, 46% desktop
• United Kingdom: 49% mobile, 46% desktop
• United States: 49% mobile, 48% desktop

[deleted]

Agree, didn't see the key in the upper left, and thought the line graph corresponded to tournaments for a second.

Remove stats of Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon from Djokovic, Nadal and Federer and you get 12, 8, 12 grand slams each. Kinda shows that Federer and Djokovic are well adapted on surfaces that aren’t their forte.

[removed]

It's crazy that all 3 of these guys played at the same time. Had they not had to play each other, they would likely have had many more. They're not even generational talents. They are all-time greats, and they had to play each other.

DCA vs LS a stock you know that lost a bunch in the last two years. DCA wins!

This had me intrigued, here is how steep each one is starting each from the first year a title was won. (not winning any awards for my graph, took a minute) https://imgur.com/a/7W0PTgW

Good god that is ATROCIOUS. You have six charts not one, the x and y axis on the charts are not the same - this might be the worst graphic I've seen in a long time.

Utter rubbish.

Wait. There are 4 graphs. The absolute shit show if a post is this

The weakest correlation I’ve ever seen

Omg your comment saved me I thought the same thing and then I realized in the same, nondescript font at the top, it said the sections like "Americas"

Have all of them share one line. A running total of non-big 3 winners

GDP per Capita visualization is on the way

All of this is to say, poor Andy Roddick…

[removed]

Thanks. Overlooked that. I'm a bonehead.

So much for the "south pole ice sheet is growing" argument

It would be small. Murray and Wawrinka are the only multi slam winners who aren’t in the big 3…and they both only have 3 slams apiece lol.

Other single slam winners include alcaraz, thiem, cilic, and medvedev. So there would be a few people stuck at one too. Just seems irrelevant compared to big 3

NSIDC has a great interactive chart of historic sea ice levels.

Heads up: it’ll make you realize earth is on a dangerous path once you realize the importance of sea ice.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

And then it levels off -fast- as Djokovic and Nadal hit the scene.

Yeah! Nobody has defended a title there since Federer in 2008. That’s cuz it’s at the end of the season and the best players (Novak, roger and Rafa) are consistently playing later into tournaments thus they come in a little more fatigued/beat up/injured than the competition who loses a few rounds earlier.

The two graphs superimposed with different y axes is misleading and also it is lacking statistical analysis

Nobody in tennis calls it “the grand slam”, they would say “calendar year grand slam” to refer to winning all four in a year, just an fyi!

Nice chart, but my god the color scheme is atrocious.

If any one of the Big Three wasn't around, how many grand slams would the other two have? How many grand slams would Andy Murray have?

The Big Three have all been in 30-33 grand slam finals and won 20-22; it's amazing how similar that is. Agassi was in 15 grand slams, won 8. Sampras was in 18 but won 14, which is crazy. Lendl was in 19 finals and only won 8, wow. Andy Murray has been in 11 finals (!!) but only won 3 because...yeah.

I had forgotten how many finals Murray's been in.

All three of them have extended periods of no titles - Djokovic has -two-!

I would imagine that players need that time to recuperate, it must be damn near impossible to stay at such a high level consistently for many years at a time.