# | Finals | Years |
---|---|---|
24 | Roger Federer | 2003–05 |
19 | Rod Laver | 1969–70 |
15 | Björn Borg | 1979–80 |
14 | Rafael Nadal | 2005–06 |
12 | Rod Laver | 1973–75 |
John McEnroe | 1980–81 | |
John McEnroe | 1984–85 | |
11 | John Newcombe | 1971–73 |
Björn Borg | 1977 | |
José Luis Clerc | 1980–81 | |
Thomas Muster | 1994–95 | |
Stan Wawrinka | 2014–16 |
Del.potro id add in and Becker.I won't give you 10. I'll just say that Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, and on a less grand scale, Wawrinka, have been standouts under pressure in the biggest possible match - a Slam final.
Or Karatsev in a semi..Kevin Anderson in a Slam final.
I meant ... Slams ... at the topmost level obv...
1. Sampras (by far in the lead)
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Mac
6. Wilander
7. Becker
8. Edberg
9. Connors
10. Newcombe
That's not really the point, but I would have imagined it would have been a bit more lopsided than their rivalries with Federer.How would you imagine things to turn out if Pete was born 10 years and if Nadal-Djokovic targeted his backhand ?
Don’t forget about court speeds. Teleporting Sampras to the future would be unfair to Sampras.How would you imagine things to turn out if Pete was born 10 years and if Nadal-Djokovic targeted his backhand ?
Jeff Sackman recently wrote this article that sort of answers this question in the women's game statistically:Graf, and some others
That's hilarious and tells you two things: the first being that your rating will inevitably slip the more matches you play. Someone who gets lucky when expected to lose 1/1 matches will have the best rating possible, but you can't win the slots forever. Moreover, this is why I don't trust machines and cold statistics on their own. They simply cannot account for the human factor in these matches.Jeff Sackman recently wrote this article that sort of answers this question in the women's game statistically:
How Much Does Naomi Osaka Raise Her Game? - Heavy Topspin
You’ve probably heard the stat by now. When Naomi Osaka reaches the quarter-final of a major, she’s 12-0. That’s unprecedented, and it’s especially unexpected from a player who doesn’t exactly pile up hardware outside of the hard court grand slams. It sure looks like Osaka finds another level as...www.tennisabstract.com
Reading this, Fed should really have retired 2012 after WIM ... he'd top this list then! Sampras very rarely displayed his fabled mental strength in conditions/against opponents that did not suit him, see FO. Take that one out and Fed is 16:3 in Slam finals until 2012 (retirement age of Sampras, 14:4 in Slam finals himself)1. Sampras (by far in the lead)
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Mac
6. Wilander
7. Becker
8. Edberg
9. Connors
10. Newcombe
Sampras almost single-handedly won the Davis Cup for the US in Russia on clay, winning both his singles and his doubles rubbers. He defeated a FO champion and #1 player in the process, and none of those opponents in Russia suited him. After winning one of his singles rubbers, Pete collapsed on the court from cramping and exhaustion:Sampras very rarely displayed his fabled mental strength in conditions/against opponents that did not suit him, see FO.
what is Boris doing on the list? He lost 2 finals in his "living room" against Edberg, who he usually owned and 1 against Stich who he despised ... succumbed to pressure each time ...1. Sampras
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Becker
Not sure after this
that was a phenomenal display, all credit for that! But it says more about his skill level and class as a player, not so much about his clutchness. He was almost the underdog going into that tie. What did he have to lose? No expectations, no pressure ...Sampras almost single-handedly won the Davis Cup for the US in Russia on clay, winning both his singles and his doubles rubbers. He defeated a FO champion and #1 player in the process, and none of those opponents in Russia suited him. After winning one of his singles rubbers, Pete collapsed on the court from cramping and exhaustion:
what is Boris doing on the list? He lost 2 finals in his "living room" against Edberg, who he usually owned and 1 against Stich who he despised ... succumbed to pressure each time ...
FixedNovak is up there in the top 2
Not really. I wouldn't put Novak higher than Nadal by any means.Fixed
makes sense, I put a bit too much focus on his Wimbledon outingsNumerous reasons. Won Wimbledon when he just was 17 and 18 years old, has one of the best win rates in 5 sets and deciding sets, some of the best win rates against top 10, top 5 and against #1 ranked players and went 3-0 in AO and USO finals. He also shouldn't have won 91 Wimbledon. Stich was the better player and took down Edberg, Courier and Becker to win. Becker had a cakewalk draw.
makes sense, I put a bit too much focus on his Wimbledon outings
Fixed
You're right number 1) Pietros 2) Djokovic
Pete was playing with the pressure of singlehandedly winning the event for his country. Add to that that he, Agassi and Courier set that as their collective mission at the start of the year and when they failed in their matches (injury in Andre's case) it ALL fell to Pete to do. On his worst surface. That was especially slowed down by the Russians. Against a French Open champion.that was a phenomenal display, all credit for that! But it says more about his skill level and class as a player, not so much about his clutchness. He was almost the underdog going into that tie. What did he have to lose? No expectations, no pressure ...
Yes.If Federer had retired in his early thirties like Sampras or in his twenties like Borg, would he be in the top 10 clutch player list? Is he being penalized for playing against younger ATGs till he is almost 40 years old?
Obviously he is penalized for that, see the continuous 0-3 in Wimbledon finals used against him.Does anyone else find it weird that someone who is considered the GOAT by the majority of the tennis world with 20 Slams and 310 weeks at #1 is not even mentioned in this thread. Is this evidence that even his fans think he could play well and win only when he was not feeling pressure meaning that the competition needed to be weak for him to thrive?
I personally think Federer was pretty clutch against everyone not named Djokovic (or Nadal on clay) and deserves mention on this top 10 clutch player thread. He has won 32 five-setters, 10 matches down 0-2 in sets, fifth set Slam finals against Roddick/Nadal (twice), saved 7 MPs to win a Slam match, beat Sampras in a fifth set at Wimbledon etc. His record consecutive streak of quarterfinals/semifinals reached in Slams is because he was always good at beating everyone he was supposed to beat however well they played.
If Federer had retired in his early thirties like Sampras or in his twenties like Borg, would he be in the top 10 clutch player list? Is he being penalized for playing against younger ATGs till he is almost 40 years old?
See AO '95, Davis Cup '95, French open '96, Open '96Reading this, Fed should really have retired 2012 after WIM ... he'd top this list then! Sampras very rarely displayed his fabled mental strength in conditions/against opponents that did not suit him, see FO. Take that one out and Fed is 16:3 in Slam finals until 2012 (retirement age of Sampras, 14:4 in Slam finals himself)
He’s really clutch in slam semi’s.Kevin Anderson in a Slam final.
Obviously he is penalized for that, see the continuous 0-3 in Wimbledon finals used against him.
Yes.
You either die (retire) a hero like Sampras or live long enough to become the villain like Federer.
Nasty trolls are concerned about why he lost 3 wimbledon finals aged 33 and above in 5 close sets, according to those haters Federer isn't GOAT on Grass because he would have been the goat if he went out in 2rd or 3rd round and still would look clutch to these people.