Besides Rafa at Roland Garros, which player has dominated their "pet slam" the most?

[Tennis_Hands]

I used to think differently, but throughout the Open Era, every dominant champion has never lost a semi or final at his best slam. Federer is the first to do so.

Such dominance at the later stages of your pet slam matters to me.

Your dream of Federer to be whatever you anointed him to be led to your inner disappointment and your inner disappointment leads to lack of being able to think, hence the statements that you make that lack logic and clarity.

There is no special requirement for the dominant players to have never lost a final/SF in any tournament to be considered dominant, so whatever the trolls thought about introducing just to fit their trolling agenda of the day (in this case, on the back of a Major victory to push Djoke in that category) shouldn't have any effect on the people who know their stuff. However, I am not even saying it because of that. I have read those exact illogical statements from you before, with the same result: I think that you lack knowledge and logic for your opinion to be considered relevant.

 

[mike danny]

Your dream of Federer to be whatever you anointed him to be led to your inner disappointment and your inner disappointment leads to lack of being able to think, hence the statements that you make that lack logic and clarity.

There is no special requirement for the dominant players to have never lost a final/SF in any tournament to be considered dominant, so whatever the trolls thought about introducing just to fit their trolling agenda of the day (in this case, on the back of a Major victory to push Djoke in that category) shouldn't have any effect on the people who know their stuff. However, I am not even saying it because of that. I have read those exact illogical statements from you before, with the same result: I think that you lack knowledge and logic for your opinion to be considered relevant.

It's just my opinion. When there have been 4 guys already, all GOATS, who have been uber dominant in the biggest matches, it matters to me. Fed is not among them. He has been incredibly consistent, but not as good of a big match player as the other 4 guys.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's just my opinion. When there have been 4 guys already, all GOATS, who have been uber dominant in the biggest matches, it matters to me. Fed is not among them. He has been incredibly consistent, but not as good of a big match player as the other 4 guys.

Your posts resemble more and more the gibberish that I read here from outspoken trolls every day.

It is an insult to the intelligence of knowledgeable tennis fans to read such blather.

 

[mr tonyz]

Federer should've retired & become one of us during Wimbly 2019 . Clearly as besting Nadal in the Semis & losing an incredibly tight final to Djoker was much worse than eating a pizza in front of his t.v for 2 weeks.

lol!

 

[Deleted member 763691]

Its amazing that Rafa is on the verge of tying the US Open record, and the US Open is not even his pet slam!
And they say Djokovic is the best hardcourter ever, and Rafa has won more US Opens than him!

 

[mr tonyz]

Its amazing that Rafa is on the verge of tying the US Open record, and the US Open is not even his pet slam!
And they say Djokovic is the best hardcourter ever, and Rafa has won more US Opens than him!

Rafa's U.S Open count is really helping him a lot. But lets not kid ourselves here . Nadal is the better U.S Open player . Overall HC? Please , he is nowhere near Djoker there.

If there were 2 French Opens played each year & one of them was played on Blue Clay , & Djoker won 4 of those to Nadal's 3 (ignoring the 1-12 defecit @ the Red Clay Slam) you'd really say Djoker is better on clay than Rafa? It's basicall the same thing , just inverted as Nadal's AO deficit is 1-8 vs Djoker's 1-12 lol ...

 

[Lew II]

Its amazing that Rafa is on the verge of tying the US Open record, and the US Open is not even his pet slam!
And they say Djokovic is the best hardcourter ever, and Rafa has won more US Opens than him!

Nadal is third of his era in 3 slams out of 4, how can he be the GOAT?

Djokovic played 6 times Federer at the USO, Nadal 0 times, by the way...

 

[Deleted member 763691]

Rafa's U.S Open count is really helping him a lot. But lets not kid ourselves here . Nadal is the better U.S Open player . Overall HC? Please , he is nowhere near Djoker there.

If there were 2 French Opens played each year & one of them was played on Blue Clay , & Djoker won 4 of those to Nadal's 3 (ignoring the 1-12 defecit @ the Red Clay Slam) you'd really say Djoker is better on clay than Rafa? It's basicall the same thing , just inverted as Nadal's AO deficit is 1-8 vs Djoker's 1-12 lol ...

Who said Rafa was a better hardcourter than Djokovic?
I've literally heard nobody ever say that
I'm just saying its amazing that Rafa has more US Opens than the best hardcourter ever!

 

[Deleted member 763691]

Nadal is third of his era in 3 slams out of 4, how can he be the GOAT?

Djokovic played 6 times Federer at the USO, Nadal 0 times, by the way...

Lucky Federer, as Rafa has a 3-1 record vs. Federer at the Australian Open (and Rafa was up a break in the 5th Set of Federer's only win)
I pray every year that Rafa-Fed will meet at the US Open, and each time Federer falls short.

 

[Tshooter]

If you do an apples to apples comparison, with Nadal following Borg into early retirement, their resume is basically identical.

Borg - 6 titles, 2 losses, not allowed to compete for 1 probable title due to WTT ban.

Rafa - 6 titles, 1 loss. Eligible to play every year.

If you do an apples to apples comparison of FEDR and Bastl at W they both are 100% against Sampras and their resume is basically identical.

 

[Spencer Gore]

After Nadal, Borg and Sampras are pretty even.

 

[S'in-net]

After Nadal at Rg it's Djokovic at Aus

Since they changed the court surface at Aus to plexi (2008)

Titles:

Djokovic 8
Federer 2
Nadal 1
Wawrinka 1

And since the 2008 change of surface, Djokovic is 8/0 Finals, 8/0 Sfinals and 6/0 Fedal...

Djokovic is also 3/1 vs 'problem' players Wawrinka/Thiem, since then

 

[mr tonyz]

After Nadal at Rg it's Djokovic at Aus

Since they changed the court surface at Aus to plexi (2008)

Titles:

Djokovic 8
Federer 2
Nadal 1
Wawrinka 1

And since the 2008 change of surface, Djokovic is 8/0 Finals, 8/0 Sfinals and 6/0 Fedal...

Djokovic is also 3/1 vs 'problem' players Wawrinka/Thiem, since then

Djoker Greensetovic

AO Titles since 2020 1

Rest of field 0

!

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras at Wimbledon? Come on.

At his peak he got straight setted by a one Slam wonder.
Lost several sets in his winning years to no names.
Had competition consisting of Ivanisevic (a major headcase), Henman, old Becker and Agassi.
Had a draw with no top 20 players.
Was finished before his 29th birthday.

 

[clout]

Good bump thread. Personally speaking:

- Borg/Sampras were the best at their peaks

- Federer in terms of totality/longevity

- Djokovic in terms of beating his top competitors in the business end

Overall, I still might stick with Pete here. Borg has too “little” with 6 and Rafa more than doubled his total, Djoker’s peak dominance at AO is probably the lowest among the four and Federer lost in 4 finals against Djokodal which is a big blow no matter how you put it.

 

[Sorry_to_tell_you_mate]

Federer at Wimbledon, the guy reached 12 finals and many of those well into his thirties.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Djokovic at AO. Unbeaten in semis and finals there

Fed has lost 4 finals and a bunch of other matches. He’s too inconsistent

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I voted Borg at RG. Very dominant there in his wins. Stats speak for themselves

 

[TennisProExpert]

Sampras at Wimbledon. Closed off the event at his peak with 7/8 wins.

Federer has the 2010-2011 losses and he should’ve won 2019 final against Djokovic

Djokovic has losses like Roddick, Tsonga, Istomin, Chung and the lucky escape in 2013.

 

[Arafel]

I'd rank it as follows:

1) Sampras
2) Borg
3) Federer
4) Djokovic

I've been following tennis since the late 70s. Pistol Pete was considered a lock at Wimbledon in the 90s, so much so that it kind of got boring watching the tournament. That's followe by Borg, who was pretty much unstoppable on red clay. His demolition of an in-form Vilas at the 1978 tournament is incredible. Of the remaining two, I selected Fed over Djoko just because of the number of finals. I don't think either was more dominant than the other. Fed was pushed hard by Roddick in 2004 and by Nadal in 2007 and again by Roddick in 2009. Djoko pushed hard by Nadal in 2012 and somewhat hard by Tsonga in 2008 and Murray in 2013. Honestly, it's hard to choose between the four. I put Sampras and Borg above Federer and Djoko because neither really seemed like a foregone conclusion, except maybe Fed in 2005-06 and Djoko in 2015-16

 

[GabeT]

Borg only won 6 FO. There was a time that was a lot but no longer

sampras won 7 and never lost a final. Novak’s 8 wins at AO with no losses trumps that.

federer has 9 Wimbledons but lost 4 finals. I don’t put much weight on his post 2008 final losses in judging his dominance since he was past peak. But his 2008 loss i think does bring him down a bit relative to the others

Djokovic by a small margin over Federer