Comparing the Greats and their Tough Losses

[McEnroeisanartist]

It seems Federer has had the most heartbreaking losses of any player in history. I wanted to look into this more and compare it to other great players by looking at how many tough losses each player had. A tough loss is defined as a 5 set loss in the quarterfinals, semifinals, or finals of a Grand Slam

Federer
3 final losses
3 semifinal losses
1 quarterfinal loss

Lendl
2 final losses
3 semifinal losses
3 quarterfinal losses

McEnroe
3 final losses
1 quarterfinal loss

Agassi
1 final loss
4 semifinal losses
2 quarterfinal losses

Sampras
2 Semifinal losses

Connors
1 final loss
4 semifinal losses
1 quarterfinal loss

Interestingly, Federer has almost the exact same record as Connors in big matches. Federer is 4-7 and Connors was 4-6.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Yeah but they're is something to be said about the means to the end in this situation.

It's not just the fact that they are 5 setters.

If one of them is a choke, and one of them is just a match decided by a few points in the 5th.

 

[achokshi99]

Yeah and how many of them lost after being up 2 sets to none like Fed w/Tsonga and Djoker? Also how many of those other greats had match points. Problem is Fed until 2008 had no legit contemporaries. I believe Fed is GOAT just from what he achieved but people talk about guys like Nadal and Murray as pushers...Fed's era had guys like Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick...throw in Safin but overall Fed never had the consisten competition level Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc had to deal with, what Lendl, Mac, Connors, etc. dealt with. Fed's most recent losses in the past few years are due to mental weakness.

Delpo 2009, Djoker 2010, Tsonga 2011, Djoker 2011...all of the big guns now know you get Fed to five sets and you have a shot. Fed's best playing is early on.

 

[Towser83]

Thing is Federer is so good to beat him you usually have to take him 5 sets even now. He's gonna go down fighting most times, so his losses are harder because he's nearly always gonna give himself a shot at winning the match. Between the Wimbledon 2008 and the aussie open 2010 he made 7 slam finals, won 4 and lost the other 3 in the 5th set of the finals. This was after his best days. That's just scary. You might say he is mentally weak but many people would have lost those matches in straight sets, I mean down 2 sets to love against Nadal after the terrible year he was having, the french open humilliation fresh in his mind, same guy coming to take his Wimbledon crown, and he still managed to battle back to level the match. This year Nadal is 2 sets down but couldn't force the decided. Why is that better? To me it isn't.

 

[celoft]

Thing is Federer is so good to beat him you usually have to take him 5 sets even now. He's gonna go down fighting most times, so his losses are harder because he's nearly always gonna give himself a shot at winning the match. Between the Wimbledon 2008 and the aussie open 2010 he made 7 slam finals, won 4 and lost the other 3 in the 5th set of the finals. This was after his best days. That's just scary. You might say he is mentally weak but many people would have lost those matches in straight sets, I mean down 2 sets to love against Nadal after the terrible year he was having, the french open humilliation fresh in his mind, same guy coming to take his Wimbledon crown, and he still managed to battle back to level the match. This year Nadal is 2 sets down but couldn't force the decided. Why is that better? To me it isn't.

Fed won 6 Wimbledons. Nadal just 2(one against Berdych!). Not the same.

Fed owned Wimbledon for years(like Nadal's ownership at RG). Nadal never owned Wimbledon.

 

[Towser83]

Fed won 6 Wimbledons. Nadal just 2(one against Berdych!). Not the same.

Fed owned Wimbledon for years(like Nadal's ownership at RG). Nadal never owned Wimbledon.

Then again, Nadal in 2008 had experience in 2 finals against Federer, one he took to 5 sets, Djokovic was facing 2 time winner, 5 time finalist and he himself had never been to the final.