Comparing Slam Losses Between Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic

[McEnroeisanartist]

I thought it would be interesting to compare losses in Grand Slams for ederer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

I will be comparing them from the last grand slam before they turned 22 to the last grand slam before they turned 26. Prime 4 years.

Federer played 17 grand slams during that period. He won 11 grand slams. In his six grand slam losses during that period, he lost to the eventual champion on four occasions (67%). The average ranking of the player he lost to was 9.3.

Nadal played 16 grand slams during that period. He won 7 grand slams. In his 9 grand slam losses during that period, he lost to the eventual champion on 4 occasions (44%). The average ranking of the player he lost to was 10.

Djokovic played 17 grand slams during that period. He won 5 grand slams. In his 12 grand slam losses during that period, he lost to the eventual champion on 4 occasions (33%). The average ranking of the player he lost to was 11.5.

Any comments?

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer achievements = Nadal's + Novak's.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Always an interesting read

 

[jg153040]

Maybe you should add at what stages of the slams were they losing.
I mean losing in a final is still better than losing in semi or quarter or earlier.

And average ranking is a bit misleading because of the two things. Federer was nr.1 the longest. So he wasn't able to play himself to boost his nr.1 ranking.

And average ranking doesn't matter that much. Because sometimes lower ranked players can play on a higer level than even a grand slam champions. That is why they are in a final. Or they can play even better only 1 match. But still enough to eliminate even a grand slam champion.
And average ranking doesn't take into account the surfaces.
I mean wasn't Sampras seeded nr.1 at RG?

So by that logic Sampras would have been tougher opponent on clay than Nadal who was seeded nr.2.

On the side note it is also true that prime Federer only lost to Safin and Nadal at slams. Both multiple grand slam champions. So Federer never loses to yourneyman. This is incredible.

 

[Nitish]

Between nadal and federer,Federer always has tougher loses and rarely goes out in straights or in 4 sets.He rarely has one sided losses in grandslams .

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Interestingly Nadal has won 8 of his 11 slam finals vs other greats, (Joker is in that category now with his 6 slams) 6 v Fed, 2 vs Joker. Fed has won only 4 of his 17 slam finals vs Greats, 2 vs Nadal, 1 vs Agassi, 1 vs Joker) Joker has won 3 of his 6 Slam finals vs greats, all 3 vs Nadal.

Fed has lost 6 slam finals vs greats(all 6 vs Nadal), of his 7 slam final losses. Joker has lost 3 slam finals vs greats (2 v Nadal, 1 vs Federer), of his 4 slam final losses. Nadal has lost all 5 of his slam slam finals vs other greats (2 vs Fed, 3 vs Joker)

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Interestingly Nadal has won 8 of his 11 slam finals vs other greats, (Joker is in that category now with his 6 slams) 6 v Fed, 2 vs Joker. Fed has won only 3 of his 17 slam finals vs Greats, 2 vs Nadal, 1 vs Agassi. Joker has won 3 of his 6 Slam finals vs greats, all 3 vs Nadal.

Fed has lost 6 slam finals vs greats(all 6 vs Nadal), of his 7 slam final losses. Joker has lost 3 slam finals vs greats (2 v Nadal, 1 vs Federer), of his 4 slam final losses. Nadal has lost all 5 of his slam slam finals vs other greats (2 vs Fed, 3 vs Joker)

So apparently, in your estimation, Djokovic is a "great" if Nadal beats him, but not if Federer does (see the 2007 US Open).

 

[Deleted member 3771]

So apparently, in your estimation, Djokovic is a "great" if Nadal beats him, but not if Federer does (see the 2007 US Open).

Excuse me for missing one, so Fed has won 4 of his 17 slam finals vs greats.

 

[Nitish]

Interestingly Nadal has won 8 of his 11 slam finals vs other greats, (Joker is in that category now with his 6 slams) 6 v Fed, 2 vs Joker. Fed has won only 3 of his 17 slam finals vs Greats, 2 vs Nadal, 1 vs Agassi. Joker has won 3 of his 6 Slam finals vs greats, all 3 vs Nadal.

Fed has lost 6 slam finals vs greats(all 6 vs Nadal), of his 7 slam final losses. Joker has lost 3 slam finals vs greats (2 v Nadal, 1 vs Federer), of his 4 slam final losses. Nadal has lost all 5 of his slam slam finals vs other greats (2 vs Fed, 3 vs Joker)

This thread is about Grand slam loses in general and not just the finals so if you are considering loses in general nadal has some bad loses like uso 2009,ao 2008,wimby 2012 etc and has not been as consistent as djokovic and federer in making finals and semi finals.

 

[jg153040]

Interestingly Nadal has won 8 of his 11 slam finals vs other greats, (Joker is in that category now with his 6 slams) 6 v Fed, 2 vs Joker. Fed has won only 3 of his 17 slam finals vs Greats, 2 vs Nadal, 1 vs Agassi. Joker has won 3 of his 6 Slam finals vs greats, all 3 vs Nadal.

Fed has lost 6 slam finals vs greats(all 6 vs Nadal), of his 7 slam final losses. Joker has lost 3 slam finals vs greats (2 v Nadal, 1 vs Federer), of his 4 slam final losses. Nadal has lost all 5 of his slam slam finals vs other greats (2 vs Fed, 3 vs Joker)

So only losses in finals count?

And this stats are a bit of circular reasoning. Your premise is that Federer hasn't won against many greats. But Federer was the only great in his era at the time Nadal wasn't making hard court finals. That is because he was so dominant he prevented others being great.

The problem is there are only 4 slams available. So if the era has 10 greats, they will win only 4 slams in a year making them look worse than they really are.

 

[Nitish]

And fed performs better than anyone else in his loses meaning he has closer matches in his loses,And he rarely loses before the sf which makes it even more impressive.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

This thread is about Grand slam loses in general and not just the finals so if you are considering loses in general nadal has some bad loses like uso 2009,ao 2008,wimby 2012 etc and has not been as consistent as djokovic and federer in making finals and semi finals.

He has had some seemingly bad losses if you didn't follow the game back then to know that a lot of those happened because he was playing with debilitating injury, not just with the knee, but also muscle/tendon tears.

 

[Nitish]

He has had some seemingly bad losses if you didn't follow the game back then to know that a lot of those happened because he was playing with debilitating injury, not just with the knee, but also muscle/tendon tears.

I know he had injuries,injuries are part of the game and nadals style makes it impossible for him to be free from injuries.You cant have it both ways.Credits to fed for being injury free,his playing style allows this.If nadal remained injury free he would have definitely won lot more slams but his physical style that causes injury has won him more slams so i guess its one or the other.

 

[jg153040]

I think this is an interesting thread. Seeing things from a reverse perspective.
The greatness isn't only what you win it should be also against who you lose also.

Since Federer doesn't get any passes because he lost all those slam finals to Nadal, it would be also fair, that other greats also don't get any free passes losing to weak competition early in slams.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I know he had injuries,injuries are part of the game and nadals style makes it impossible for him to be free from injuries.You cant have it both ways.Credits to fed for being injury free,his playing style allows this.If nadal remained injury free he would have definitely won lot more slams but his physical style that causes injury has won him more slams so i guess its one or the other.

If Nadal didn't have a congenital foot condition that has had an affect on his knees and caused the knee injuries then he wouldn't have so much injury. Credit to Fed for being injury free and also for not having a congenital foot condition.

 

[jg153040]

If Nadal didn't have a congenital foot condition that has had an affect on his knees and caused the knee injuries then he wouldn't have so much injury. Credit to Fed for being injury free and also for not having a congenital foot condition.

If Federer didn't have inferior genetics that has had an affect on his training and caused his low stamina and forced him to grind less he wouldn't have such low level of play. Credit to Nadal for having better genetics and also for being able to train harder.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

If Federer didn't have inferior genetics that has had an affect on his training and caused his low stamina and forced him to grind less he wouldn't have such low level of play. Credit to Nadal for having better genetics and also for being able to train harder.

Did you just invent that? proof?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

If Federer didn't have inferior genetics that has had an affect on his training and caused his low stamina and forced him to grind less he wouldn't have such low level of play. Credit to Nadal for having better genetics and also for being able to train harder.

That was Sampras and the Thalassaemia minor, not Federer.

 

[jg153040]

Did you just invent that? proof?

I though that was common knowledge that Nadal is a better athlete.
He comes from a family who are all genetically gifted.

And doesn't Nadals speed and power prove this? Federer can't run that fast.

But I thought that was common knowledge and doesn't need to be proven.
Why does Federer do so well against Nadal in best of 3 sets and on surfaces that don't reward fitness so much?

But it is what it is. Federer was blessed with superior tennis talents but Nadal was blessed with superior athletic talents.

 

[Nitish]

Federer
losses in Grand slams since wim 2003
USO 2003 Nalbandian def Federer 3-6 7-6 6-4 6-3
FO 2004 Kuerten def Federer 6-4 6-4 6-4
AO 2005 Safin def Federer 5-7 6-4 5-7 7-6 9-7
FO 2005 Nadal def Federer 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
FO 2006 Nadal def Federer 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4)
FO 2007 Nadal def Federer 6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4
AO 2008 Novak def Federer 7-5 6-3 7-6
FO 2008 Nadal def Federer 6–1, 6–3, 6–0
WIM 2008 Nadal def Federer
6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5–7), 6–7(8–10), 9–7
AO 2009 Nadal def Federer 7–5, 3–6, 7–6(7–3), 3–6, 6–2
USO 2009 Del porto def Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
FO 2010 Soderling def Federer 3-6 6-4 7-5 6-4
USO 2010 Novak def Federer 5-7 6-1 5-7 6-2 7-5
AO 2011 Novak def Federer 7-6 7-5 6-4
FO 2011 Nadal def Federer 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 5–7, 6–1
WIM 2011 Tsonga def Federer 3-6 6-7 6-4 6-4 6-4
USO 2011 Novak def Federer 6-7 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5
AO 2012 Nadal def Federer 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-4
FO 2012 Novak def Federer 6-4 7-5 6-3
USO 2012 Berdych def Federer 7-6 6-4 3-6 6-3
AO 2013 Murray def Federer 6-4 5-7 6-3 6-7 6-2



Average seeds of players who beat fed=5.1(never lost to a unseeded player)

He is been beaten only by the top players when it comes to slams.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If Federer didn't have inferior genetics that has had an affect on his training and caused his low stamina and forced him to grind less he wouldn't have such low level of play. Credit to Nadal for having better genetics and also for being able to train harder.

LOL. Nice response.

You know the old, saying: If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle...

If Sampras had more weeks at no.1, more titles and more majors he'd be the...

 

[mike danny]

i have a question? let's say i am a tennis player and reach a grand slam final. IMO i think it is worse to lose in 5 sets when you play close to your best than to lose in 3 sets when you have a bad day. why? because when you have a bad day there is simply nothing u can do about it. but when you know you played your best and still lost i think it hurts more

 

[jg153040]

i have a question? let's say i am a tennis player and reach a grand slam final. IMO i think it is worse to lose in 5 sets when you play close to your best than to lose in 3 sets when you have a bad day. why? because when you have a bad day there is simply nothing u can do about it. but when you know you played your best and still lost i think it hurts more

Interesting point. I can only say from my experience from playing a computer game at a high level long time ago. For me it was reverse what you said.
If I played my best and still lost I felt great. Because this means I did everything I could and it really was beyond my control so I felt happy. But when you get owned on a bad day playing at low level that felt painful. It felt like I wasn't trying my best.

Like Murray said when he lost a close match vs Djokovic at AO 2012. That this gave him confidence so he knew he can hang with the best.

I've been studying how champions think for years now. And when they feel they did their best that is all they care about. Even if they lose. Because their philosophy is you fail only when you don't put in your best. But when you try your best, you can't fail. Worse thing is to not try at all. That is a real failure.

Failure is not being rejected by the most beautiful woman in the room. It is when you don't even ask her out that is a failure.

 

[Nitish]

i have a question? let's say i am a tennis player and reach a grand slam final. IMO i think it is worse to lose in 5 sets when you play close to your best than to lose in 3 sets when you have a bad day. why? because when you have a bad day there is simply nothing u can do about it. but when you know you played your best and still lost i think it hurts more

I think its the other way around,even if you dont play at your best you manage to push the match to five sets.like AO 2013 fed was no where near his best but still managed the push it to five sets.

 

[mike danny]

I think its the other way around,even if you dont play at your best you manage to push the match to five sets.like AO 2013 fed was no where near his best but still managed the push it to five sets.

yes but at the same federer has this mental block against rafa because of all their close matches like rome 2006, wimby 2008 and AO 2009. he even cried after this one. closer matches hurt more because you did all you clould and still failed

 

[jg153040]

yes but at the same federer has this mental block against rafa because of all their close matches like rome 2006, wimby 2008 and AO 2009. he even cried after this one. closer matches hurt more because you did all you clould and still failed

I don't think it's mental. He also won a lot of close ones vs Nadal. Wimby 2007, one 5 setter in miami I think. WTF 2010 final was a close one. Also Hamburg 2007 I think went to 3 sets.

I think 2009 Australian open had more to do with him failing to equal Sampras record in front of Laver. Federer cried in front of Laver in AO 2006 when he won.

And when in decline it is normal that you start losing close matches. Sampras said that that was the difference between his prime and post prime. That post prime on a bad day against an opponent playing amazing tennis he would have lost a close match. But in his prime he won those types of matches.

I mean the same is happening to Nadal. Losing all those close matches to Djokovic.

It's just that only very great players can take and advantage of that.

 

[mike danny]

I don't think it's mental. He also won a lot of close ones vs Nadal. Wimby 2007, one 5 setter in miami I think. WTF 2010 final was a close one. Also Hamburg 2007 I think went to 3 sets.

I think 2009 Australian open had more to do with him failing to equal Sampras record in front of Laver. Federer cried in front of Laver in AO 2006 when he won.

And when in decline it is normal that you start losing close matches. Sampras said that that was the difference between his prime and post prime. That post prime on a bad day against an opponent playing amazing tennis he would have lost a close match. But in his prime he won those types of matches.

I mean the same is happening to Nadal. Losing all those close matches to Djokovic.

It's just that only very great players can take and advantage of that.

but i have to admire his mental strength. after all those losses to nadal and i mean terrible losses, losses that would make a player retire like borg. but federer kept coming back for more and in the end achieved all that he wanted to achieve. his persevearance is what won him the career slam in the first place.

 

[jg153040]

but i have to admire his mental strength. after all those losses to nadal and i mean terrible losses, losses that would make a player retire like borg. but federer kept coming back for more and in the end achieved all that he wanted to achieve. his persevearance is what won him the career slam in the first place.

True. I read somewhere that it takes only 2 hours for him to get over a grand slam final loss. He is the master of comebacks. It's like he comes stronger and more motivated after a loss.

I mean come to think of it he was so tough to beat. His opponents were in a lose-lose situation. They had to play lights out tennis to beat him. But if they succeeded somehow rarely, he comes back even stronger. Very tough for them.

 

[kalyan4fedever]

USO 2009 Delpo def nadal 6-2 6-2 6-2
AO 2010 Murray def nadal 6-3 7-6 3-0(retd)
AO 2011 Ferrer def nadal 6-4 6-2 6-3

lol not a baby is he

 

[mike danny]

you know what is intruguing? that those match points losses at the US Open did not affect federer as much as the losses to nadal affected him. i wonder why because in those losses against rafa(wimby and AO) he did not sniff a match point but against djoko he lost 4.

 

[jg153040]

you know what is intruguing? that those match points losses at the US Open did not affect federer as much as the losses to nadal affected him. i wonder why because in those losses against rafa(wimby and AO) he did not sniff a match point but against djoko he lost 4.

Yeah 2 years 4 match points vs the same player. That would probably hurt anyone. But at least they weren't in a final. That would be even more painful.

He comes back stronger against a tough loss. Look how he responded. I guess champions don't quit easily when there's a little trouble. They have incredible faith.

 

[moonballs]

i have a question? let's say i am a tennis player and reach a grand slam final. IMO i think it is worse to lose in 5 sets when you play close to your best than to lose in 3 sets when you have a bad day. why? because when you have a bad day there is simply nothing u can do about it. but when you know you played your best and still lost i think it hurts more

You are assuming when Nadal lost in straights or to lower seeded players he somehow didn't try his best. You are also assuming losing to a lower ranked player felt somehow not as bad as losing to a higher ranked player. Both assumptions are wrong and you only need to watch the Rosol match and think about the aftermath to realized it.