Djokovic now has the men's record (5) for most Grand Slam finals lost in straight sets
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
DSH
Bionic Poster
PedrosCousin
Rookie
If you look up the word "delusion" in the dictionary it says "see Djokovic GOAThood claim".
Tennfan123
Legend
And one of them was in the biggest match of his career lol. So mentally tough!
Slams played, Borg ranked first in winning percentages; Djokovic, Nadal and Federer ranked 2-4. Nadal's ranking was due to his stellar play on clay. For other surfaces, he trailed Djokovic and Federer.
Name Won Pl'y %
Djoko 392 446 87.9
Nadal 314 358 87.7
Feder 369 424 86.0
For all tournaments, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer ranked 1, 2 and 4 in percentages won; Borg ranked third.
Name Won Pl'ed %
Djoko 1150 1381 83.3
Nadal 1080 1308 82.6
Feder 1251 1526 82.0
What do you expect? He outranked Nadal and Federer in both slams and non-slams percentages!
Nappa
Hall of Fame
He couldnt win more than them when they were around. He had to wait until they were gone to surpass them. Thats not how a goat is claimed. He just outlasted them but was not better in any way whatsoever.
Cabeza del Demonio
Hall of Fame
When you reach that many Slam finals and stay competitive this far past your prime, it's bound to happen.
More impressed by Federer and Nadal only having the one loss.
Cabeza del Demonio
Hall of Fame
Outlasting them matters. If we only cared about how good you were for a short period, and if avoiding losses mattered more than continuing to get wins, then we'd just nominate Borg as the GOAT and call it a day.
PedrosCousin
Rookie
This might sound like grasping at straws but in Fed's case I might chalk that up to the fact that he never retired from matches and probably played quite a few matches that he shouldn't have and as a result went out in straights. He rarely if ever complained about physical ailments and I'm sure he tried to play through a few we don't know about.
Conversely I know Djokovic retired from or never played quite a few matches due to physical ailments. (mostly earlier in his career) I'm not necessarily saying all this makes Fed better, but this could explain the extra straight sets losses for him.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I honestly think the topic is insignificant and pointless because a loss is just a loss whether it's straight sets or 5 sets, but since the OP delved into this topic I wonder if he actually knew that. Even if we add in Djokovic's retirements Federer still lost more in straight sets although Djokovic has played the most Slam matches in the Open Era at this point. They both only have 1 walkover in a Slam but again, I don't think any of this is relevant.
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
I dunno bro, if you fancy your guy better than the other guy, and your guy gets drubbed in 3 sets…..
2008 RG is considered pretty much the low point v Nadal for Fedfans
PedrosCousin
Rookie
I will agree that the whole premise of this post is pretty weak. But pointless overanalyzing does seem to be the MO on this forum most of the time.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
As a fan, it stings but it doesn't make it any better imo. I'd rather my fave get drubbed than lose a close 5 setter when they were so close to winning. I got over 2020 RG a lot faster than the 2013 RG SF, for example.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Good point and agreed.
Djokovic was the youngest, so they had head start, and he caught up and surpassed them. Nadal was one year older, and got the 21st and 22nd slams when he was 36. Djokovic was one year younger, and got the 22nd, 23rd and 24th slams when he was 36.
Federer got '12 WB, his only slam after 2011. His last 3 slams were when Djokovic had a bum elbow and was injured. Guess who benefitted when Djokovic got injured!
Federer had only ONE slam after 2011 when Djokovic was healthy. Nadal was shut out of AO and WB after 2011; he won '22 AO because Djokovic was kicked off the tournament. Meanwhile, Djokovic collected 16 trophies out of AO & WB after 2011.
Last edited:
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
It's not a good thing. If you're good enough to make the final of a slam, you should be good enough to at least win a set...more so if you're an ATG.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
The GOAT Race:
Throne Race: from 1 : 285 : 102 to 428 : 310 : 209
Slam Race: from 1 : 16 : 9 to 24 : 20 : 22
Top10Win Race: from 39 : 135 : 72 to 261 : 224 : 186
Who would have imagined?
BauerAlmeida
Legend
Not really. It takes some mental gymnastics to make it seem better to lose before the final than to reach the final and lose in straight sets.
You remove all the finals that Djokovic lost in straights, and he'd still be the player with the most finals reached at slams. So, if he had lost earlier in all those 5 tournaments, he'd be the player with the most finals reached at slams in history, and he'd have never lost a GS final in straights. You are essentially "punishing" him for reaching a final instead of losing in 4/5 earlier.
Not to mention that this statistic doesn't consider those who lost in straights earlier than the final. The number of times that a player lost in straights at a slam would be more meaningful, even if it's still pretty meaningless anyway.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Such sour grapes lol. You're basically saying how dare he have the temerity to keep on winning so much after they were gone, like he should've just retired around the same time, not taking into account that he's younger and fitter so was always more likely to outlast them anyway. Ridiculous post from you.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
This argument has more holes in it than a bowling ball lol.
Do you remove the slams that Federer and Nadal won before Djokovic was around? It's funny how people always poke fun at the arguments used in favor of Djokovic that include "Since 2011" (and with good reason, because tennis existed before 2011), but now the opposite is used to discredit him. People want to discredit what he achieved after Nadal and Federer retired (Nadal retired last year, BTW). As if their careers started at the same time. Federer is the oldest, he started playing earlier and he started winning earlier than Nadal. Same situation with Nadal regarding Djokovic. Do we discount the slams Federer won after Agassi retired? Do we discount the slams Agassi and Sampras won after Becker and Edberg retired? Do we discount the slams Connors won after Borg retired? And say in all those situations that they simply won more because they were "outlasted"?
Nadal won his first slam in 2005 and last in 2022. A 17-year gap. Djokovic won his first in 2008 and last in 2023, a 15-year gap. So Nadal had a longer period of winning slams. In any case, Nadal outlasted Djokovic. And frankly, call me cynical, but I don't think that if Nadal had won the slam race, many of his fans would see this as a good argument against him. Even if it was true, and Djokovic had outlasted them, it would be stupid to hold it against him. But ignoring the fact that he is younger and started playing later is peak dishonesty. BTW, in the period that BOTH Nadal and Djokovic were winning slams, 2008-2022, Djokovic won 21 slams and Nadal won 19. So if you want to count that, Djokovic wins. And that's ignoring that Djokovic had a huge period between his first and second slam, that Nadal didn't have (or Federer), if we ignore that and count only since they started winning consistently, it doesn't look pretty for Nadal.
GoatNo1
Legend
yes, it is much better to lose in early rounds to 100+ ranked players in your best years!
GoatNo1
Legend
2021 he felled for the pressure of CYGS.
rafa use to lose in his best years in early rounds to 100+ ranked players. fed lost 6 GS matches being MPs upp. 3 of that to nole. once in the final.
GoatNo1
Legend
noles basic level is so high that even if he is out of form and not playing so great he plays in final stages of all slams. so it is easier to lose it to some top player on fire. rafa, on the other hand, lose to 100+ opponents in early rounds even in his best years!
Last edited:
GoatNo1
Legend
absolutely better to reach the final of his favorite slam than lose in the 1st round.
GoatNo1
Legend
but he was able to win 24 slams dropping some sets. and make 3 CGS and nole-slam. not to bad!
Earth Mightiest Warrior
big ted
Legend
From the players perspective , I would argue that losing any match in straights is better than a losing a close one. losing in straights means the other player was on fire that day & nothing could be done. Ask Federer what makes him feel worse . The 2008 FO final or the 2019 W final
This is not a good post
I would posit that most of Djoko's 5 straight-set losses were before '10 and after '23, meaning he was too young or too old! When he was too old, they came against Charlie and Jannik! No shame, since they are going to win at least 20 slams each, and were 14-16 years younger!
Meaning, both of these young guns are 2 tennis generations removed from Novak! Now suppose they were of the same generation, we'd have a battle royale on our hands!
Meaning, both of these young guns are 2 tennis generations removed from Novak! Now suppose they were of the same generation, we'd have a battle royale on our hands!
Last edited:
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
1 16 9
Who would have thought that Novak will win 24 slams and push roger and rafa aside.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yeah but he also has the men's record for most Grand Slams, period.
I'd still take that deal.
GoatNo1
Legend
as said. noles basic level is so high that he can reach the final stages of all slams with poor form and play with top players on fire and best form (who would not reach finals stages if not in form)! while rafa lose in early rounds vs 100+ ranked players even in his best seasons.
titles: 24 - 22 +2
finals: 37 - 30 +7
SF: 52 - 38 +14
QF: 63 - 47 +16
so nole from 10 more entries has more finals and 14 more semifinals. while rafa never (in his slam winning years, 05-22) missed RG anyway, and RG is his only high procent winning slam.
titles: 24 - 22 +2
finals: 37 - 30 +7
SF: 52 - 38 +14
QF: 63 - 47 +16
so nole from 10 more entries has more finals and 14 more semifinals. while rafa never (in his slam winning years, 05-22) missed RG anyway, and RG is his only high procent winning slam.
| AO | nole | rafa | fed |
|---|---|---|---|
| W | 10 | 2 | 6 |
| F | 10 | 6 | 7 |
| SF | 12 | 7 | 15 |
| QF | 15 | 14 | 15 |
| Entry | 20 | 18 | 21 |
| RG | nole | rafa | fed |
|---|---|---|---|
| W | 3 | 14 | 1 |
| F | 7 | 14 | 5 |
| SF | 13 | 15 | 8 |
| QF | 19 | 16 | 12 |
| Entry | 21 | 19 | 19 |
| W | nole | rafa | fed |
|---|---|---|---|
| W | 7 | 2 | 8 |
| F | 10 | 5 | 12 |
| SF | 14 | 8 | 13 |
| QF | 16 | 8 | 18 |
| Entry | 20 | 15 | 22 |
| USO | nole | rafa | fed |
|---|---|---|---|
| W | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| F | 10 | 5 | 7 |
| SF | 13 | 8 | 10 |
| QF | 13 | 9 | 13 |
| Entry | 18 | 16 | 19 |
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
duaneeo
G.O.A.T.
"Nothing could be done" by Djokovic to win a set in a slam final? FIVE times???
More reason to question his supposed GOATness.
We can all agree that Djokovic has many inferior stats as well as negative stats too when evaluating player's placement in ATG. Good
If Djokovic had lost in the semi final stage in those 5 tournaments, then he would be sitting on the honour of never having lost a slam final in straight sets. What are your thoughts here? Was he better to have lost the semis rather than won it?
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
This is the most amazing aspect of fandom. Rafa and roger fans find many great holes in novak resume.
He lost 5 slam final in straight set. Nobody is saying that he reached 6 more finals than fedrer and 7 more finals than rafa.
When 97% or maybe 98% players never reaches 1 final here a guy who reached 37 finals is criticised.
Fedrer wins at 36 year of age .....oh my god he is genius.
Rafa wins at 36 years of age.......oh my god he is fighter.
Novak wins at 36 years of age......oh my god he has vultured .
What type of double standard are used in this forum.
He lost 5 slam final in straight set. Nobody is saying that he reached 6 more finals than fedrer and 7 more finals than rafa.
When 97% or maybe 98% players never reaches 1 final here a guy who reached 37 finals is criticised.
Fedrer wins at 36 year of age .....oh my god he is genius.
Rafa wins at 36 years of age.......oh my god he is fighter.
Novak wins at 36 years of age......oh my god he has vultured .
What type of double standard are used in this forum.
anarosevoli
Professional
20 % more finals and 400 % more straight set losses expectable? (not that I care about this statistic)
ghostofMecir
Legend
On that note, it seems that the Djokovic fan base has been cut in half the last few months when he's no longer number one earning slams, which is of course all the line with the glory hunting theories. There's one poster who is probably responsible for 1/3 of all the threads and probably like 10% of all the posts somehow over the last year who hasn't even really posted anymore now that Djokovic is not winning.
He actually should have won the first two sets of the 2007 US Open final, so he actually missed a great opportunity to win his first GS at that time and not do it a few months later at the Australian Open.
Similar threads
