Federer and Records at this year's French Open

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. McEnroeisanartist

    McEnroeisanartist Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,183
    Has anyone else noticed how many records that Federer could set at this year's French Open.

    If he wins his first round, he will overtake Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam match wins.

    If he reaches the quarterfinals, he will become the only player to have reached the quarterfinals of a grand slam at least 9 times at three different grand slams.

    If he reaches the semifinals, he will tie Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam semifinals appearances. He will have reached the semifinals of a grand slam at least 7 times at all four grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 6 times.

    If he reaches the finals, he will become the only player to have reached the finals of a grand slam at least 6 times at three different grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 5 times (and at all four grand slams).

    If he wins the tournament, he becomes the only player in the open era to win all four grand slams at least twice. He would tie Guillermo Vilas for most match wins at the French Open, which means he would have the most match wins at the Australian Open and the French Open, his two weakest Grand Slams.

    WOW.
     
    #1
  2. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Didn't realize any of that was going on... i'm pretty surprised.
     
    #2
  3. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,694
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    That's why if I had to choose which major would I like Fed to win is the French Open.
     
    #3
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,063
    Connors played so many years, and for Fed to surpass him at 30 is amazing. Goat title will continue to lean toward him.
     
    #4
  5. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    I agree, another RG title in Fed's major collection would be really nice. Last year he could've won if he didn't bend over for the Ralph as usual.
    Dont see him reaching the finals this year though.
     
    #5
  6. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    Continue to lean? I wouldn't dare to ask you who the GOAT is.
     
    #6
  7. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    29,016
    Location:
    Tuning Up The Band...
    Yeah, definitely Fed for me, he's done some seriously amazing things in a short time.
     
    #7
  8. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,694
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    weak era..
     
    #8
  9. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,063
    Yes. Most fans around the world already picked him. As long as he add more records, the more fans will pick him. Goatness are based on the sheer number of fans have on one player. That's my point.
     
    #9
  10. djokovicgonzalez2010

    djokovicgonzalez2010 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    11,865
    Location:
    SW Virginia, USA
    He'd also be fairly likely to break #1 record based on this, even if not immediately
     
    #10
  11. Arafel

    Arafel Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,142
    Not really. Connors stopped playing the Australian Open after 1975, and skipped the French from 74-78, once from being banned, the others to get back at the French Federation for banning him. He also skipped the French in 86 and 88, plus he missed the entire 1990 season. So what is really amazing is that Connors essentially set that record playing 2.5 slams.
     
    #11
  12. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,694
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I think it's even as Connors was still reaching QF/SF in majors on a consistent basis until he was 39 or so.

    Also, I think Fed can go on and win another 80 matches in majors if he wants to.
     
    #12
  13. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Federer has played 51 majors to Connors' 57. That's a more accurate way to look at it than years, considering that Connors only played the Australian Open twice and the French Open 13 times when compared to 20 Wimbledons and 22 US Opens.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
    #13
  14. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,552
    Still the same in the end, though. Of course, should Federer fail to win a single match in the next seven majors, and then retire, Connors would keep this "record". Not sure many people would bet on that, though... ;)
     
    #14
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,063
    ^^
    Those are all good points. I want to add that winning number of matches in the deeper rounds vs. earlier rounds is also a good metric. It's tougher to win in the late round.
     
    #15
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,063
    Santoro played a lot of slam events too, but most of his wins are in the early round. We should put more weight on matches that are in the deeper round.
     
    #16
  17. monfed

    monfed Guest


    Out of this post, the significant records look like -

    - most grandslam match wins

    -most grandslam semis tied with Connors

    - all 4 GS atleast twice.
     
    #17
  18. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Here are their records:

    Jimmy Connors
    1970 US Open: Round of 128 Loser
    1971 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser (didn't play as he gave a walkover to his opponent)
    1971 US Open: Round of 64 Loser
    1972 French Open: Round of 32 Loser
    1972 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
    1972 US Open: Round of 128 Loser
    1973 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
    1973 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
    1973 US Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1974 Australian Open: CHAMPION
    1974 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    1974 US Open: CHAMPION
    1975 Australian Open: Runner-up
    1975 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    1975 US Open: Runner-up
    1976 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
    1976 US Open: CHAMPION
    1977 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    1977 US Open: Runner-up
    1978 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    1978 US Open: CHAMPION
    1979 French Open: Semi Final Loser
    1979 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
    1979 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1980 French Open: Semi Final Loser
    1980 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
    1980 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1981 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1981 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
    1981 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1982 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1982 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    1982 US Open: CHAMPION
    1983 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1983 Wimbledon: Round of 16 Loser
    1983 US Open: CHAMPION
    1984 French Open: Semi Final Loser
    1984 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    1984 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1985 French Open: Semi Final Loser
    1985 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
    1985 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1986 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
    1986 US Open: Round of 32 Loser
    1987 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1987 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
    1987 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1988 Wimbledon: Round of 16 Loser
    1988 US Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1989 French Open: Round of 64 Loser
    1989 Wimbledon: Round of 64 Loser
    1989 US Open: Quarter Final Loser
    1991 French Open: Round of 32 Loser
    1991 Wimbledon: Round of 32 Loser
    1991 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    1992 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
    1992 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
    1992 US Open: Round of 64 Loser


    Roger Federer
    1999 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
    1999 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
    2000 Australian Open: Round of 32 Loser
    2000 French Open: Round of 16 Loser
    2000 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
    2000 US Open: Round of 32 Loser
    2001 Australian Open: Round of 32 Loser
    2001 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
    2001 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
    2001 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
    2002 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser
    2002 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
    2002 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
    2002 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
    2003 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser
    2003 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
    2003 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    2003 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
    2004 Australian Open: CHAMPION
    2004 French Open: Round of 32 Loser
    2004 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    2004 US Open: CHAMPION
    2005 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
    2005 French Open: Semi Final Loser
    2005 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    2005 US Open: CHAMPION
    2006 Australian Open: CHAMPION
    2006 French Open: Runner-up
    2006 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    2006 US Open: CHAMPION
    2007 Australian Open: CHAMPION
    2007 French Open: Runner-up
    2007 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    2007 US Open: CHAMPION
    2008 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
    2008 French Open: Runner-up
    2008 Wimbledon: Runner-up
    2008 US Open: CHAMPION
    2009 Australian Open: Runner-up
    2009 French Open: CHAMPION
    2009 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
    2009 US Open: Runner-up
    2010 Australian Open: CHAMPION
    2010 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
    2010 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
    2010 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    2011 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
    2011 French Open: Runner-up
    2011 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
    2011 US Open: Semi Final Loser
    2012 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
     
    #18
  19. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,747
    Just thought this was funny, in a way.
     
    #19
  20. decades

    decades Guest

    pretty meaningless considering the AO and FO only became essential recentley. skews things pretty radically.
     
    #20
  21. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,433
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I would like him to win one Wimbledon also. That way his would equal Pete's wins at Wimbledon
     
    #21
  22. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,433
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Great ! Roger Federer is gonna create history this time at RG
     
    #22
  23. 1HBH Rocks

    1HBH Rocks Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    426
    Or strong Federer? Both can be justified with a major difference between the leader and the rest... how do you go from a major difference to the conclusion that it's a weak era? As far as I can tell saying X-Y=4 doesn't tell much about either X or Y, except that X, relative to Y, is greater by 4 units and Y, relative X, is smaller by 4 units. Same with trophies and results: by them, you can tell how much better versus the rest Federer was, but you can't weight the value of each sides on the virtue of it.

    However, Federer is still number 3 at 30 (nearly 31), still competes with the best players and does it, unlike people before him, in what is BY VERY VERY VERY far the most physically demanding era of all times. If it was just because he had an easy time, now that he has more than fair competition and that he's old in the rough times of baseline bashers, we'd expect him to struggle. But he still outdoes his predecessors at the same age... why? Because your hypothesis doesn't hold up to this fact. How many players won the year end title right in the face of the 7 other best players while they were 30? He won two of them in a row at 29 and 30.

    He simply was too good of a competitor... he made other people look weak which isn't the same.
     
    #23
  24. Frying Pan Forehand

    Frying Pan Forehand Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    297
    I don't understand why you even bother....trolls gonna troll anyway.
     
    #24
  25. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,678
    Tennis_pro is a fed fanatic who was being sarcastic, you are preaching to the quire. Incidentally I love the X-Y analogy, very well put mathematically.
     
    #25
  26. 1HBH Rocks

    1HBH Rocks Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    426
    The number of matches won versus the number of GS entry rules early rounders out right away, except for players who were really not that regular in their performance. Let's look for how Federer and Connors did and let's just compare them. Let's use the current points the ATP gives for each round and make the grand total to compare who got the highest points per tournament entry.

    2000 Winner
    1200 Runner-up
    720 Semi-final
    360 Quarter finals
    180 4th Round
    90 3rd Round
    45 2nd Round
    10 1st Round

    Federer has 6 x first Rounds, 0 x second Round, 4 x third Rounds, 6 x fourth Rounds, 5 x Quarter finals, 7 x Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 16 Titles for 51 tournament main draws. So, it adds up to 48 740pts or an average of 956pts per main draw entry.

    Connors has 7 x first Round, 5 x second Rounds, 3 x third Rounds, 2 x fourth Rounds, 10 x Quarter finals, 16 Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 9 Titles for 59 tournament main draws. It adds up to 42 445pts or an average of 719pts per main draw entry.

    Provided the assumption that the points are attributed in a more or less representative way of their relative weight, we can say that Federer has been better than Connors and in less time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2012
    #26
  27. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,433
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I must say I loved the X-Y analogy. Very well put :)
     
    #27
  28. 1HBH Rocks

    1HBH Rocks Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    426
    I am preaching to the choir (hallway), not to the quire (a notebook). Just to get it straight, but I do not mean to offend... People often have more opinions that they cherish about humans than about numbers, so when you have them use numbers and algebra, you can have them see what is fallacious and what is not more easily. It doesn't always work, but in this case it does work well.
     
    #28
  29. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,991
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    weak argument
     
    #29
  30. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Ha ha. Following this logic...the accomplishments of Ralph and Djoker should be written off as well as they were around for a good portion of this "weak era". As for Sampras, I have heard many on these boards proclaim his era was weak too. I guess that leaves Laver as GOAT then. Of course most of you opining on these boards weren't even a glimmer in your parents' eyes when Laver dominated the game.

    "Anchoring" - overweighting recent experience.
    "Selective Memory" - recalling only events consistent with your understanding of the past.
     
    #30
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,063
    Wow! Thanks for the effort and time to come up with this data.

    Just one point on the bolded part...didn't Connors won 8 slams?
     
    #31
  32. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    8 titles for Connors out of 58 tournament main draws.
     
    #32

Share This Page