#1 Seed and Performance of Greats in Open Era

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Looking at how the greats (6 or more slams won in the open era) performed in Grand Slams that they were seeded #1. When seeded #1, what percentage of slams did they go on to win.


Federer 11/23 - 47.83%
Sampras 9/23 - 39.13%
Nadal 3/9 - 33.33%
Borg - 8/14 - 57.14%
Connors - 2/9 - 22.22%
Agassi - 1/7 - 14.28%
Lendl - 5/17 - 29.41%
McEnroe - 3/10 - 30.00%
Wilander 0/1 0.00%
Becker - 0/2 - 0.00%
Djokovic - 3/8 - 37.50%
Edberg - 0/6 - 0.00%

I think a couple of things stand out. 1. How many Slams Federer won when he was seeded #1/expected to as the pressure was on him. 2. Djokovic rises above his tier 3 great level with success as a #1 seed.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Looking at how the greats (6 or more slams won in the open era) performed in Grand Slams that they were seeded #1. When seeded #1, what percentage of slams did they go on to win.


Federer 11/23 - 47.83%
Sampras 9/23 - 39.13%
Nadal 3/9 - 33.33%
Borg - 8/14 - 57.14%
Connors - 2/9 - 22.22%
Agassi - 1/7 - 14.28%
Lendl - 5/17 - 29.41%
McEnroe - 3/10 - 30.00%
Wilander 0/1 0.00%
Becker - 0/2 - 0.00%
Djokovic - 3/8 - 37.50%
Edberg - 0/6 - 0.00%

I think a couple of things stand out. 1. How many Slams Federer won when he was seeded #1/expected to as the pressure was on him. 2. Djokovic rises above his tier 3 great level with success as a #1 seed.
Wow edberg has a terrible record
 
T

TheAnty-vic

Guest
Federer has been the most dominating and successful as the No.1!
Nothing new here.
 
Looking at how the greats (6 or more slams won in the open era) performed in Grand Slams that they were seeded #1. When seeded #1, what percentage of slams did they go on to win.


Federer 11/23 - 47.83%
Sampras 9/23 - 39.13%
Nadal 3/9 - 33.33%
Borg - 8/14 - 57.14%
Connors - 2/9 - 22.22%
Agassi - 1/7 - 14.28%
Lendl - 5/17 - 29.41%
McEnroe - 3/10 - 30.00%
Wilander 0/1 0.00%
Becker - 0/2 - 0.00%
Djokovic - 3/8 - 37.50%
Edberg - 0/6 - 0.00%

I think a couple of things stand out. 1. How many Slams Federer won when he was seeded #1/expected to as the pressure was on him. 2. Djokovic rises above his tier 3 great level with success as a #1 seed.

Is that including or excluding the weak era?
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Looking at how the greats (6 or more slams won in the open era) performed in Grand Slams that they were seeded #1. When seeded #1, what percentage of slams did they go on to win.


Federer 11/23 - 47.83%
Sampras 9/23 - 39.13%
Nadal 3/9 - 33.33%
Borg - 8/14 - 57.14%
Connors - 2/9 - 22.22%
Agassi - 1/7 - 14.28%
Lendl - 5/17 - 29.41%
McEnroe - 3/10 - 30.00%
Wilander 0/1 0.00%
Becker - 0/2 - 0.00%
Djokovic - 3/8 - 37.50%
Edberg - 0/6 - 0.00%

I think a couple of things stand out. 1. How many Slams Federer won when he was seeded #1/expected to as the pressure was on him. 2. Djokovic rises above his tier 3 great level with success as a #1 seed.

That's atrocious from Edberg, sheesh!
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Agassi - 1/7 - 14.28%


Agassi was seeded number 1 at 8 majors, winning 1 of those:

1995 French Open
1995 Wimbledon
1995 US Open
2000 Australian Open
2000 French Open
2000 Wimbledon
2000 US Open
2003 US Open

Edit: Mistake made by me. Sampras seeded number 1 at 2000 Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nadal is 3/8, unless you count 2009 Wimbledon that he didn't play.

2008 US Open
2009 Australian Open
2009 French Open
2010 US Open
2011 Australian Open
2011 French Open
2011 Wimbledon
2014 Australian Open

Knowing McEnroeartist he probably counts Wimbledon 2009 as a first round loss lol.
 

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Agassi was seeded number 1 at 8 majors, winning 1 of those:

1995 French Open
1995 Wimbledon
1995 US Open
2000 Australian Open
2000 French Open
2000 Wimbledon
2000 US Open
2003 US Open

Sampras was seeded #1 at 2000 Wimbledon. As he should have been, winning the tournament 6 out of the 7 previous years.
 

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Nadal is 3/8, unless you count 2009 Wimbledon that he didn't play.

2008 US Open
2009 Australian Open
2009 French Open
2010 US Open
2011 Australian Open
2011 French Open
2011 Wimbledon
2014 Australian Open

Yes, I counted 2009 Wimbledon, just as I counted 1999 US Open for Sampras.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Sampras was seeded #1 at 2000 Wimbledon. As he should have been, winning the tournament 6 out of the 7 previous years.

Ah, so he was. That peculiar system of Wimbledon's of not always seeding the world number 1 at #1.

Do you also think Nadal should have been seeded number 1 at last year's French Open instead of seeded at number 3? After all, Nadal had won the tournament 7 out of the 8 previous years.
 
Last edited:

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Ah, so he was. That peculiar system of Wimbledon's of not always seeding the world number 1 at #1.

Do you also think Nadal should have been seeded number 1 at last year's French Open instead of seeded at number 3? After all, Nadal had won the tournament 7 out of the 8 previous years.

Yes, I think most would agree that Nadal should have been seeded #1 at the French Open in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

2006 is debatable.

It is stupid that the player most dominant at one Grand Slam ever has only been expected (seeded #1) to win the tournament twice.

Props to Sampras for winning Wimbledon as the #1 seed 6 out of 8 times.

It will be interesting to see how many more #1 seeds Nadal earns. At the moment, the top 4 players with the most #1 seeds (Federer, Sampras, Lendl, and Borg), were all considered the best players of the 00s, 90s, 80s, and 70s.

It is a bit odd that Nadal has only been seeded once more than Djokovic but has 7 more Grand Slams.
 
Top