The Dark Knight
Legend
Does anyone know ?
Off the top of my head - 2004FO, 2006AO, 2009Wim, 2012US, 2013AO
He wouldn't have won them if he'd played them. Nice try.
Off the top of my head - 2004FO, 2006AO, 2009Wim, 2012US, 2013AO
Depends if you consider butthurt an injury
This is what the OP is trying to insinuate,if he really wanted to know he could've looked it up on wiki, good catch Cup.
Furthermore the OP is a known Fed hater, just so you know.
And you're a known Nadal hater so what's the difference?
IDK you tell me Djoko hater. :lol:
I don't start threads about my most disliked player the way you do. I'm beginning to think maybe you have a crush on Nadal or something since he seems to be all you think about. :lol:
You don't make threads,period. Besides you're too busy using your voodoo to keep Djoker at bay so where will you have the time to start threads? :lol:
PS: I see you got yourself a new avatar. Congrats, it's nice to you see in a good mood. Seeing you after the MC loss I almost wanted Ralph to win in future. :lol:
How many grand slams has Federer missed?
How many grand slams has Federer missed?
Actually, NONE. Partly because of his approach towards the game and pure luck... Nole is also lucky that way. He has a very physical game but, till now, hasnt picked up a major injury. It's interesting how everyone says that Nadal had it coming but no one says that about Nole
I don't start threads about my most disliked player the way you do. I'm beginning to think maybe you have a crush on Nadal or something since he seems to be all you think about. :lol:
Let's see. RG 2004, W 2004, AO 2006, W 2009, USO 2012, AO 2013. That's 6. (In 2003, he was 16/17 and I don't think he intended to play AO at all, not sure about RG).
Murray skipped RG and W 2007 (I'm gonna assume injury)
Fed missed USO 1999 (not sure why, he played W and RG that year)
Djoko's never skipped a slam (since he started playing them in 2005)
I'm gonna go for 6. Unless there is any knowledge of whether he intended to play RG 2003, I'm just assuming he was too young (16) and simply planned on starting at W 2003 when he was 17.
Add 2003 FO as well and 2004 Wimbledon.
I counted W 2004. It's 6 including W 2004. Not sure about RG 2003 as I said.
8 is the least likely (he was playing challengers around AO 2003) + I find it preposterous to talk of "skipping" when the guy is only 16. In that case let's count 4+ for Fed and Djoko because they were not playing slams at 16. My understanding of "miss" is: skipping slams after a player STARTS playing them. Nadal started playing slams at W 2003 when he was 17. The first one he skipped was RG 2004. I'll stick to that.
I never thought of this but is there a stat for winning percentages?
Who has the higher win loss percentage Nadal or Fed.
In other words Of the slams they were in how many has Federer won and how many has Nadal won ?
Let's see. RG 2004, W 2004, AO 2006, W 2009, USO 2012, AO 2013. That's 6. (In 2003, he was 16/17 and I don't think he intended to play AO at all, not sure about RG).
Murray skipped RG and W 2007 (I'm gonna assume injury)
Fed missed USO 1999 (not sure why, he played W and RG that year)
Djoko's never skipped a slam (since he started playing them in 2005)
In terms of winning % in slams, Borg is #1 with 89.8, Nadal is #2 with 87.7, Fed is #3 with 86.9 (#4 is Laver and #5 is Sampras.)
In terms of records though, my feeling is that the deal is sealed for Fed. Not only are Nadal/Djoko unlikely to ever reach 17 slam titles but at this point, they're even unlikely to score 2 consecutive seasons of winning 3 slams and 3 seasons total (Fed's 2004, 2006, 2007). Nadal/Djoko have 1 each. And they're also extremely unlikely to ever have 3 seasons of making 4 slam finals (Fed's 2006, 2007 and 2009) as they don't even have one as it is.
So the most probable is that Fed will keep the slam record in general. I don't see that up for discussion at the moment.
OK, then that makes 7 total. Thanks for the info.He was going to play 2003 RG as his first slam....but got injured doing something stupid. Then got injured at 2004 FO for doing something stupid again.
Funny after that he has such a good record. If it were not for those injuries....Rafa would have had 2 more losses in RG cabinet. He was quite good back then but he lost to top Clay Courters...not the beast he came in 2005.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal
1.↑ Nadal missed the 2003 French Open due to a right elbow injury.
2.↑ 2.0 2.1 Nadal missed the French Open and Wimbledon in 2004 due to a fracture in his left ankle.
3.↑ Nadal missed the 2006 Australian Open due to a foot injury.
4.↑ Nadal missed the 2009 Wimbledon due to tendinitis in the knee.
I was talking only open era. Laver has only 1 calendar slam in open era (Don Budge also had a calendar slam pre-open era, in 1938) Laver was awesome but the conditions are very different now. In 1969, 3 of the 4 slams Laver won were on grass.Wow!! You are awesome !!!
That's a really amazing stat!!!
I wonder why it's never been done before .
The player to me with the most amazing stats is Laver actually.
He won not only one calendar grand slam but two and in the twighlight of his career.
It would be like Federer now winning calendar grand slams for two years in a row.
It's amazing also that Nadal has missed at least more than half of the slams that he has won.
I was talking only open era. Laver has only 1 calendar slam in open era (Don Budge also had a calendar slam pre-open era, in 1938) Laver was awesome but the conditions are very different now. In 1969, 3 of the 4 slams Laver won were on grass.
OK, then that makes 7 total. Thanks for the info.
Nole has retired 4 times at grand slams so does that count?
And you're a known Nadal hater so what's the difference?
OMG you have a Nadal avatar! I thought you hated him.
Gooooooooosh, wow , yeah gripping story. Particularly when you consider the fact that there are TWO HC majors (out of which one plays pretty much like clay). :shock:1 thing that Rafa has over Fed on top of the overall winning % in slams is the fact that he has more than 1 slam title on all 3 surfaces.
1 thing that Rafa has over Fed on top of the overall winning % in slams is the fact that he has more than 1 slam title on all 3 surfaces.
Gooooooooosh, wow , yeah gripping story. Particularly when you consider the fact that there are TWO HC majors (out of which one plays pretty much like clay). :shock:
That's a lot easier to do when there are 2 slams on HC and only one on grass and clay. He's only won the USO and AO once each. Whereas Federer has multiple wins in 3 slams; W-7, USO-5, AO-4.