Comparing Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg's Grand Slam Wins

[McEnroeisanartist]

I thought it would be interesting to compare how the four greatest male players of the Open Era - Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg - played in the final three rounds of each of their Grand Slam Championships.

In Quarterfinal Matches, Nadal has the lowest sets loss average, with 0.11 sets lost. Borg, - 0.27, Federer - 0.5, Sampras - 1.0

In Semifinal Matches, Federer has the lowest sets loss average, with 0.31 sets lost. Nadal - 0.33, Borg - 0.36, Sampras - 0.57

In Final Matches, Sampras has the lowest sets loss average, with 0.5 sets lost. Federer - 0.56, Nadal - .89, Borg - 1.09

In all Grand Slams won, Nadal has the lowest sets loss average, with 1.33 sets lost. Federer - 1.37, Borg - 1.72, Sampras - 2.07.

Federer and Borg both won 4 of his Grand Slams without losing a set in the final three rounds of the tournament. Nadal achieved this twice. Sampras never achieved this.

Federer's most difficult tournament was the 06 Australian Open where he lost three sets between the quarterfinals and finals.

Nadal's most difficult tournament was the 09 Australian Open where he lost four sets between the quarterfinals and finals.

Sampras' most difficult tournament was the 95 Wimbledon where he lost four sets between the quarterfinals and finals.

Borg's most difficult tournament was the 74 French Open where he lost five sets between the quarterfinals and finals.

Federer played four 5 set matches in the final rounds, Nadal - 3, Sampras - 6, and Borg - 7.

 

[nadal_slam_king]

Rafa owns all because he had to beat the GOAT in 6 of his 9 slam titles.

 

[timnz]

Nadal 4th in the Open Era

Rafa owns all because he had to beat the GOAT in 6 of his 9 slam titles.

Sorry no, 16 beats 9. Simple as that. And so does 11 beat 9 (Borg). And 14 beat 9 (Sampras).

So one could say that Nadal is 4th out of that top 4 in the Open Era. He has a chance to be number 1 by the end of his career. But that the moment he's 4th.

 

[jukka1970]

This statistic is the one that surprises me most about Nadal. "In Final Matches, Sampras has the lowest sets loss average, with 0.5 sets lost. Federer - 0.56, Nadal - .89, Borg - 1.09"

I'm surprised that Nadal is that close to an average of 1. He's been so dominant at the French, or do these statistics include the Slam events that they've lost?

Jukka

 

[nereis]

Remember that its only 08 and 10 FO did Nadal win the final in straights. Every other final has been at least a 4 set affair.

 

[borg number one]

These are interesting numbers, because the QF-Finals is really "crunch time". Borg played in 27 majors, winning 11 of them and making the finals in 5 more (he won or made the finals of 16/27 during his career). His 5 losses in finals were all to either McEnroe or Connors.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Bo/B/Bjorn-Borg.aspx

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Bo/B/Bjorn-Borg.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=gs#

Before he was 21, Bjorn Rune Borg had registered feats that would set him apart as one of the game's greats - and before he was 26, the head-banded, golden-locked Swede was through. No male career of the modern era has been so brief and bright. Tennis is filled with instances of precocious achievements and championships, but none is quite as impressive as those of the seemingly emotionless Borg. Just before his 18th birthday he was the youngest winner of the Italian Championship, and two weeks later he was the youngest winner of the French Championship (a record lowered by Mats Wilander, 17, in 1982, and subsequently by Michael Chang, a younger 17 in 1989).

 

[nadal_slam_king]

Sorry no, 16 beats 9. Simple as that. And so does 11 beat 9 (Borg). And 14 beat 9 (Sampras).

So one could say that Nadal is 4th out of that top 4 in the Open Era. He has a chance to be number 1 by the end of his career. But that the moment he's 4th.

That would only apply if he retired tomorrow. We all know he's headed for many more slams and especially when he's headed for 5 or 6 straight. Nobody's even won 4 straight since Laver.

 

[ledwix]

That would only apply if he retired tomorrow. We all know he's headed for many more slams and especially when he's headed for 5 or 6 straight. Nobody's even won 4 straight since Laver.

Uh huh, because adding 7 imaginary titles at grand slam championships is a given and not the sign of a **** or anything.

Also, Nadal is GOAT because he beat the GOAT. The GOAT isn't GOAT, i.e. GOAT =/= GOAT.

 

[timnz]

McEnroe

Not even sure that at this stage Nadal is ahead of McEnroe.

Sure Nadal has won 9 majors and McEnroe 7. But in McEnroe's prime the Australian Open was only just getting back on its feet. The WCT finals and/or the Season End Masters finals were more the 4th Major in those years. McEnroe won 5 WCT Finals and 3 Masters.


Maybe the could be regarded as equal at this stage. (Nadal will probably surpass in the future but nothing future is certain). Nadal has only won 1 US Open for goodness sake (and 1 Australian Open). Nadal hasn't dominated any major except the French Open. 2 Wimbledons is impressive but not a dominant run at a major. 7 for Sampras and 6 for Federer and even 5 for Borg.

 

[powerangle]

That would only apply if he retired tomorrow. We all know he's headed for many more slams and especially when he's headed for 5 or 6 straight. Nobody's even won 4 straight since Laver.

But we can't award phantom slams that a player hasn't won yet. We can say he has the potential, and you as a fan should be happy that he is very likely to win many more. That is different from assuming someone will win X slams and therefore greater when they haven't even achieved it yet.

Some *******s seem to have a hard time differentiating from "potential" and "on track" from "he is already greater".

 

[illkhiboy]

Interestingly, Sampras, Borg and Federer all dominated at least two Grand Slams. Borg thoroughly dominated Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Sampras was utterly dominant at Wimbledon, and to a lesser degree at the US Open. But he was always the man to beat at the US Open. Won in 1993, early loss in '94 when returning from injury, won in 95-96, decent results in 97-98, skipped 1999, made finals in 2000-01, and won it again in 2002.

Federer of course, also dominated both Wimbledon and US Open. One can also argue that he was dominant at the Australian Open as well. From 2004 to 2010, he has won it four times, been a finalist once and semi finalist twice. And he has certainly been the man to beat there.

Nadal, meanwhile, has been dominant at only Roland Garros. I see him continuing his domination there for at least two more years. And he will probably win one or two more Wimbledons. And I see winning in Melbourne next year, and possibly adding another US Open to his resume. That will be a pretty crazy resume. But there's a possibility that he still wouldn't have been dominant at the other three majors.

 

[Dreamer]

I think Borg is a useless comparison for these particular statistics. He played a different field of competition and you're comparing set loss. Even Fed and Rafa's numbers are circumstantial. If you're going to compare a small number of matches between QF-F an on fire Verdasco will skew your statistics.

 

[Dreamer]

Nadal, meanwhile, has been dominant at only Roland Garros. I see him continuing his domination there for at least two more years. And he will probably win one or two more Wimbledons. And I see winning in Melbourne next year, and possibly adding another US Open to his resume. That will be a pretty crazy resume. But there's a possibility that he still wouldn't have been dominant at the other three majors.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think it's unfortunate that Nadal was unable to defend his Wimbledon title at '09, then the discussion might be a little different.

 

[aphex]

Rafa owns all because he had to beat the GOAT in 6 of his 9 slam titles.

Do you need to play with yourself when you watch Rafa on TV?

Poor *******...

 

[Bobby Jr]

Interestingly, Sampras, Borg and Federer all dominated at least two Grand Slams.....

Nadal, meanwhile, has been dominant at only Roland Garros...

This is quite a salient point in the scheme of the next couple of years. I still see Nadal more as a cherry-picker of slams outside of the French than a dominator of them. He'll win them - some of them more than once - but I'm inclined to think he wont have a 4 or 5-in-a-row type run at any of them like Federer did.

That's the main reason I think it's a little premature to look at Nadal's results to date and talk like it's basically a given he'll get to 16 as some people here believe. In the least it'll be harder for him to achieve it than it was for Federer (which would, in some ways, make achieving it all the more sweeter if he gets there - and also assuming the total is still 16 by the time he tries to take over the crown, which we can't be sure it will be).

 

[Sharpshooter]

Remember that its only 08 and 10 FO did Nadal win the final in straights. Every other final has been at least a 4 set affair.

Can you tell me which set Berdych won at the 10 Wimby final?

 

[bolo]

Interestingly, Sampras, Borg and Federer all dominated at least two Grand Slams. Borg thoroughly dominated Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Sampras was utterly dominant at Wimbledon, and to a lesser degree at the US Open. But he was always the man to beat at the US Open. Won in 1993, early loss in '94 when returning from injury, won in 95-96, decent results in 97-98, skipped 1999, made finals in 2000-01, and won it again in 2002.

Federer of course, also dominated both Wimbledon and US Open. One can also argue that he was dominant at the Australian Open as well. From 2004 to 2010, he has won it four times, been a finalist once and semi finalist twice. And he has certainly been the man to beat there.

Nadal, meanwhile, has been dominant at only Roland Garros. I see him continuing his domination there for at least two more years. And he will probably win one or two more Wimbledons. And I see winning in Melbourne next year, and possibly adding another US Open to his resume. That will be a pretty crazy resume. But there's a possibility that he still wouldn't have been dominant at the other three majors.

This is partly a result of the nadal/federer career arcs. When federer came up he had no real challengers on grass. The cohort above him was mediocre overall imo (moya, haas, rios, kafelnikov maybe in there too) in terms of talent and 2 cohorts above him you are looking at sampras/agassi, basically old guys in tennis terms. When federer won his 1st grass court slam, sampras was out of the game. So federer was in a good position to dominate at wimbledon and he converted.

In contrast when nadal came up federer was firmly in place at wimbledon and it was a real battle between the two once nadal developed his game outside of clay (2007 on imo). Now federer is out of prime and nadal has some breathing room because nadal is clearly the best player in his cohort and most likely the cohort below his on grass (we know the players in the cohort below nadal's already). Nadal now has the space to put up federer like numbers in the coming years, just like federer had the space from 2003-2006.

The key missing element which adds the most uncertainty imo is that no one except his camp knows what it cost nadal to put up the numbers he already has i.e. no one knows the true state of nadal's knees. Of course, federer is only 5 years older and still has the potential to put up some good fights at wimbledon for a couple of more years, so nadal will have to watch out for that as well.

 

[TMF]

Do you need to play with yourself when you watch Rafa on TV?

Poor *******...

Ewwwwwww....that's at home, but I hope I will never see that in public.

 

[jackson vile]

Do you need to play with yourself when you watch Rafa on TV?

Poor *******...

That's just plain gross, don't be saying stuff like that.

 

[Mustard]

Roger Federer's slam finals
2003 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-2, 7-6)
2004 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
2004 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
2004 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-0, 7-6, 6-0)
2005 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 7-6, 6-4)
2005 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-6, 6-1)
2006 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Marcos Baghdatis (5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2)
2006 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
2006 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)
2006 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2007 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Fernando Gonzalez (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
2007 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
2007 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)
2008 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
2008 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (6-2, 7-5, 6-2)
2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
2009 French Open F: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
2009 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)
2009 US Open F: Juan Martin del Potro def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2)
2010 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)

16 wins (9 in straight sets, 5 in 4 sets, 2 in 5 sets)
6 losses (1 in straight sets, 2 in 4 sets, 3 in 5 sets)


Rafael Nadal's slam finals
2005 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Mariano Puerta (6-7, 6-3, 6-1, 7-5)
2006 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
2006 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)
2007 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
2008 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
2010 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
2010 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Tomas Berdych (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
2010 US Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2)

9 wins (3 in straight sets, 4 in 4 sets, 2 in 5 sets)
2 losses (1 in 4 sets, 1 in 5 sets)


Pete Sampras' slam finals
1990 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
1992 US Open F: Stefan Edberg def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2)
1993 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3)
1993 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
1994 Australian Open F: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
1994 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 7-6, 6-0)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2)
1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
1996 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
1997 Australian Open F: Pete Sampras def. Carlos Moya (6-2, 6-3, 6-3)
1997 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
1998 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2)
1999 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
2000 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Rafter (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
2000 US Open F: Marat Safin def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
2001 US Open F: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-1, 6-1)
2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)

14 wins (8 in straight sets, 5 in 4 sets, 1 in 5 sets)
4 losses (2 in straight sets, 2 in 4 sets)


Bjorn Borg's slam finals
1974 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Manuel Orantes (2-6, 6-7, 6-0, 6-1, 6-1)
1975 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-2, 6-3, 6-4)
1976 Wimbledon F: Bjorn Borg def. Ilie Nastase (6-4, 6-2, 9-7)
1976 US Open F: Jimmy Connors def. Bjorn Borg (6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1977 Wimbledon F: Bjorn Borg def. Jimmy Connors (3-6, 6-2, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4)
1978 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-1, 6-1, 6-3)
1978 Wimbledon F: Bjorn Borg def. Jimmy Connors (6-2, 6-2, 6-3)
1978 US Open F: Jimmy Connors def. Bjorn Borg (6-4, 6-2, 6-2)
1979 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Victor Pecci (6-3, 6-1, 6-7, 6-4)
1979 Wimbledon F: Bjorn Borg def. Roscoe Tanner (6-7, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1980 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Vitas Gerulaitis (6-4, 6-1, 6-2)
1980 Wimbledon F: Bjorn Borg def. John McEnroe (1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7, 8-6)
1980 US Open F: John McEnroe def. Bjorn Borg (7-6, 6-1, 6-7, 5-7, 6-4)
1981 French Open F: Bjorn Borg def. Ivan Lendl (6-1, 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1)
1981 Wimbledon F: John McEnroe def. Bjorn Borg (4-6, 7-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1981 US Open F: John McEnroe def. Bjorn Borg (4-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-3)

11 wins (5 in straight sets, 1 in 4 sets, 5 in 5 sets)
5 losses (1 in straight sets, 3 in 4 sets, 1 in 5 sets)

 

[timnz]

Sampras

Sampras was utterly dominant at Wimbledon, and to a lesser degree at the US Open. But he was always the man to beat at the US Open. Won in 1993, early loss in '94 when returning from injury, won in 95-96, decent results in 97-98, skipped 1999, made finals in 2000-01, and won it again in 2002.
.

Sampras also won in 1990 and was a finalist in 1992. You can actually say that he was a strong contender from 1990 through 2002 all of those years. He had the best record of anyone by far in those 13 seasons at the US Open. That is 5 wins and 3 times runner-up - 8 finals in all. Yes, he was dominant at the US Open.

Agree with your point Nadal is a fantastic player but has only shown dominance at the French Open. He other Grand Slam wins and finals aren't up to the other great players of old yet - though he possibly may get there due to his huge talent. Another thing missing from his resume - he hasn't even made one season end final yet.

 

[illkhiboy]

Sampras also won in 1990 and was a finalist in 1992. You can actually say that he was a strong contender from 1990 through 2002 all of those years. He had the best record of anyone by far in those 13 seasons at the US Open. That is 5 wins and 3 times runner-up - 8 finals in all. Yes, he was dominant at the US Open.

Agree with your point Nadal is a fantastic player but has only shown dominance at the French Open. He other Grand Slam wins and finals aren't up to the other great players of old yet - though he possibly may get there due to his huge talent. Another thing missing from his resume - he hasn't even made one season end final yet.

Thanks, had forgotten about Sampras being a finalist in 1992. Though one could argue that he wasn't a contender in 1991 since he was so shaken up by the media circus, and it wasn't until he won Wimbledon in 1993 that he truly emerged as a major contender. In a way, it's similar to Nadal and Wimbledon. In his last four appearances there he has made two finals and won it twice. But can we say that Nadal has been dominating Wimbledon since 2006? I don't think so.

And Nadal's results at the YEC don't get mentioned enough. He has a fantastic record at the Masters events but people conveniently forget that dominant players of the past won the YEC multiple times.