Federer 60 Wins+ at all 4 Grand Slams

[McEnroeisanartist]

Congratulations to Federer on winning his 60th match at the French Open today! He has now won at least 60 matches at all four Grand Slams.

Only Connors and Sampras have even managed to win 60+ matches at two Grand Slams.

On the women's side, Evert and Graf were able to win 60+ matches at three Grand Slams.

Nadal just won his 60th match at one Grand Slam on Monday.

 

[Omega_7000]

This should be a criteria to compare greatness...Consistency across the board and not just on one surface.

 

[NADALRECORD]

Agassi's comment makes all those wins count for zero

The only stat that even keeps Federer in the picture is #17.

 

[xFedal]

Congratulations to Federer on winning his 60th match at the French Open today! He has now won at least 60 matches at all four Grand Slams.

Only Connors and Sampras have even managed to win 60+ matches at two Grand Slams.

On the women's side, Evert and Graf were able to win 60+ matches at three Grand Slams.

Nadal just won his 60th match at one Grand Slam on Monday.

Yh great Djokovic and Nadal will have this achievement in few years time aswell! How long has Federer been on tour for since 1998 Finally he got to 60 wins at all slams!:shock: Kinda late for a player of his calibre :twisted:

 

[xFedal]

This should be a criteria to compare greatness...Consistency across the board and not just on one surface.

Djokovic and Nadal will have these achievement aswell in few years time dont forget Fed is 5 years ahead of Nadal and Djkovic:?

 

[helloworld]

Djokovic and Nadal will have these achievement aswell in few years time dont forget Fed is 5 years ahead of Nadal and Djkovic:?

I doubt Nadal can make 60+ wins at Wimbledon with all those 1st&2nd round losses. Djokovic has a better chance to do it given he often goes deep in every slams.

 

[SpinToWin]

Agassi's comment makes all those wins count for zero

The only stat that even keeps Federer in the picture is #17.

the only stat that keeps Nadal in the picture is the H2H… (which doesn't count for ****)

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

What is more likely - Federer winning 70 matches at all four Grand Slams - needs 10 at French, 3 at Wimbledon, and 3 at US Open?

Or Nadal winning 60 matches at all four Grand Slams - needs 19 at Australian, 24 at Wimbledon, and 19 at US Open.

 

[helloworld]

Djokovic and Nadal will have these achievement aswell in few years time dont forget Fed is 5 years ahead of Nadal and Djkovic:?

Looking at the stats, I'm now certain Nadal will not have 60+ wins at Wimbledon. He's currently at 36 wins at Wimbledon. I doubt he'll win almost twice more at the tail end of his career.

 

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

He needs 17 more at Wimbledon to tie Connors. I do not think he gets it, last year really sunk his chances.

 

[Omega_7000]

Djokovic and Nadal will have these achievement aswell in few years time dont forget Fed is 5 years ahead of Nadal and Djkovic:?

Oh so now Fed is 5 years ahead...But 5 years is insignificant when H2H comes up. :roll:

 

[Omega_7000]

Agassi's comment makes all those wins count for zero

The only stat that even keeps Federer in the picture is #17.

Rod Laver's comment makes the H2H count for zero.

The only stat that keeps Ralph in the picture is number of weeks at # 1..........Oh wait

 

[oberyn]

Congratulations to Federer on winning his 60th match at the French Open today! He has now won at least 60 matches at all four Grand Slams.

Only Connors and Sampras have even managed to win 60+ matches at two Grand Slams.

On the women's side, Evert and Graf were able to win 60+ matches at three Grand Slams.

Nadal just won his 60th match at one Grand Slam on Monday.

I agree that it’s a remarkable achievement for Fed.

Although the reason Navratilova and Evert “only” have 60 wins at 3 slams and not 4 is pretty obvious. Ditto Connors, as well. Playing 4 slams a year was just not a priority during their era.

For example, Evert didn’t play the Australian Open at all from 1975-1980. Navratilova skipped it from 1976-1979. That’s 6 years’ worth of matches skipped by Chrissy and 4 years’ worth skipped by Martina.

Connors played the Australian Open twice in his career. Yes, twice. He won it once and reached the finals the other time. He was also barred from Roland Garros in 1974 and then chose not to play it from 1975-1978. When he played it again from 1979-85, he made 4 semifinals and 3 quarterfinals.

 

[LazyNinja19]

It's an amazing achievement, no doubt! There's no denying that Federer is the most consistent player in the history of this sport.

But just for a little perspective, (from another thread)

Federer - 59 Grand Slams Played

Nadal - 37 Grand Slams Played

Djokovic - 37 Grand Slams Played

Federer has played 22 more Grand slams than Nadal & Djokovic.

Roger just hasn't missed any Slam. Of course with his great consistency, he's gonna win that many number of matches. He could play for another 5 years, and reach around 80 or so matches at every Slam. It'll not mean much.
It's all about winning Slams! He knows it too, of course.

 

[smoledman]

Overrated stat. Fed has been around for 20-30 years on tour? Wasn't he around when Laver was playing?

The bigger stat is Nadal won his 60th match in his 10th French Open while Fed is playing his 16th.

 

[coloskier]

Agassi's comment makes all those wins count for zero

The only stat that even keeps Federer in the picture is #17.

Because it is the only stat that anyone cares about.

 

[smoledman]

Where is ********* when you need him?

 

[coloskier]

Overrated stat. Fed has been around for 20-30 years on tour? Wasn't he around when Laver was playing?

The bigger stat is Nadal won his 60th match in his 10th French Open while Fed is playing his 16th.

And Wimbledon, AO, USO? What are the stats on the ones that Nadal is much poorer at? Considering that FO is usually at the bottom of most peoples list of importance compared to the other 3?

 

[smoledman]

And Wimbledon, AO, USO? What are the stats on the ones that Nadal is much poorer at? Considering that FO is usually at the bottom of most peoples list of importance compared to the other 3?

I think it's far more impressive to dominate a single slam like Nadal has then have it spread around like peanut butter. FedNut Butter.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I agree that it’s a remarkable achievement for Fed.

Although the reason Navratilova and Evert “only” have 60 wins at 3 slams and not 4 is pretty obvious. Ditto Connors, as well. Playing 4 slams a year was just not a priority during their era.

For example, Evert didn’t play the Australian Open at all from 1975-1980. Navratilova skipped it from 1976-1979. That’s 6 years’ worth of matches skipped by Chrissy and 4 years’ worth skipped by Martina.

Connors played the Australian Open twice in his career. Yes, twice. He won it once and reached the finals the other time. He was also barred from Roland Garros in 1974 and then chose not to play it from 1975-1978. When he played it again from 1979-85, he made 4 semifinals and 3 quarterfinals.

Connors not playing a Grand Slam for four years during his prime - STUPID.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I think it's far more impressive to dominate a single slam like Nadal has then have it spread around like peanut butter. FedNut Butter.

I think it far more impressive that Federer won two Grand Slams each five consecutive times. How many other players have done this at even one Grand Slam?

 

[oberyn]

Connors not playing a Grand Slam for four years during his prime - STUPID.

Different era. Hard as it is for us to imagine, there was a period there when a top player playing all 4 slams in a season was the exception, not the rule.

 

[JMR]

I think it's far more impressive to dominate a single slam like Nadal has then have it spread around like peanut butter. FedNut Butter.

Federer's abject failure to "dominate" any individual slam is surely a black mark on his record. If you can't do better than being tied for the most titles of all time at Wimbledon, and tied for the most titles in the open era at the U.S. championships, and tied for the most titles in the open era at the Australian, where do you get off claiming to be GOAT candidate??

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer's abject failure to "dominate" any individual slam is surely a black mark on his record. If you can't do better than being tied for the most titles of all time at Wimbledon, and tied for the most titles in the open era at the U.S. championships, and tied for the most titles in the open era at the Australian, where do you get off claiming to be GOAT candidate??

Because it is better than anyone else?

 

[rh310]

Because it is better than anyone else?

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Plus tied for most victories at FO and alone with most titles at the WTF, not bad.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I think he was being sarcastic.

That would be nice.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Good to see mr. ******* Fatherer still breaking records.

I just hope he'll make it to the second week of RG.

 

[TMF]

Whether the anti-Federer like it or not, Federer set another benchmark set himself apart more from the other all time great players.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's a nice benchmark, almost as good as 63 wins at every Grand Slam event (which is almost as good as 65).

 

[Djokovic2011]

If Novak reaches the QF of RG and the 3rd round of Wimbledon he'll be only the second active player to have at least 40 match wins at all 4 slams. :smile:

 

[moonballs]

Federer's abject failure to "dominate" any individual slam is surely a black mark on his record. If you can't do better than being tied for the most titles of all time at Wimbledon, and tied for the most titles in the open era at the U.S. championships, and tied for the most titles in the open era at the Australian, where do you get off claiming to be GOAT candidate??

Uhhh, the obvious answer is obvious, no?

 

[monfed]

Congratulations to Federer on winning his 60th match at the French Open today! He has now won at least 60 matches at all four Grand Slams.

Only Connors and Sampras have even managed to win 60+ matches at two Grand Slams.

On the women's side, Evert and Graf were able to win 60+ matches at three Grand Slams.

Remarkable achievement.

 

[smoledman]

Whether the anti-Federer like it or not, Federer set another benchmark set himself apart more from the other all time great players.

But look at how some people here try to minimize his achievements.

 

[monfed]

It's an amazing achievement, no doubt! There's no denying that Federer is the most consistent player in the history of this sport.

But just for a little perspective, (from another thread)



Federer has played 22 more Grand slams than Nadal & Djokovic.

Roger just hasn't missed any Slam. Of course with his great consistency, he's gonna win that many number of matches. He could play for another 5 years, and reach around 80 or so matches at every Slam. It'll not mean much.
It's all about winning Slams! He knows it too, of course.

But Fed not missing a slam since IDK when is probably an even tougher achievement so can't isolate it.

 

[checkmilu]

To win at least 60 matches on all 4 slams, Nadal may need to play until 45 years of age providing that he can keep his current form all the way! Scary!

 

[Russeljones]

I agree that it’s a remarkable achievement for Fed.

Although the reason Navratilova and Evert “only” have 60 wins at 3 slams and not 4 is pretty obvious. Ditto Connors, as well. Playing 4 slams a year was just not a priority during their era.

For example, Evert didn’t play the Australian Open at all from 1975-1980. Navratilova skipped it from 1976-1979. That’s 6 years’ worth of matches skipped by Chrissy and 4 years’ worth skipped by Martina.

Connors played the Australian Open twice in his career. Yes, twice. He won it once and reached the finals the other time. He was also barred from Roland Garros in 1974 and then chose not to play it from 1975-1978. When he played it again from 1979-85, he made 4 semifinals and 3 quarterfinals.

All perfectly reasonable, but I just want to suggest the flip-side of what you've said. The modern game is so brutally physical, it puts (or should put) Federer's achievement in an entirely different league of its own.

 

[JMR]

I think he was being sarcastic.

Sarcasm appears to be a lost art in this place. If italics and double question marks don't offer a clue, I will simply have to accept being misunderstood.

 

[JMR]

All perfectly reasonable, but I just want to suggest the flip-side of what you've said. The modern game is so brutally physical, it puts (or should put) Federer's achievement in an entirely different league of its own.

Federer had eight straight years with at least 20 slam match victories. Sampras and Agassi each had three such years in their careers. Nadal has had four years so far, and Djokovic is on a run of three straight years.

 

[Russeljones]

He needs 17 more at Wimbledon to tie Connors. I do not think he gets it, last year really sunk his chances.

I don't know about that but just by playing as long as Connors did, he would surely break his record for matches won at a single Slam tournament, I reckon.

 

[Russeljones]

Federer had eight straight years with at least 20 slam match victories. Sampras and Agassi each had three such years in their careers. Nadal has had four years so far, and Djokovic is on a run of three straight years.

It's mindboggling.

 

[The Green Mile]

I believe he can definitely get 70 at all grand slams... depends on long he wants to keep going, really...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Sarcasm appears to be a lost art in this place. If italics and double question marks don't offer a clue, I will simply have to accept being misunderstood.

I was just being a bit slow. After all you are a relative newbie here....

 

[Phoenix1983]

But Fed not missing a slam since IDK when is probably an even tougher achievement so can't isolate it.

The last slam that Fed missed was the USO 1999.

So he has played in every slam this century. (58 consecutive and counting, a record of course)

Next record for Fed, if he reaches the QF here (which looks very likely given that his draw is Tursunov, then Stepanek/Gulbis), is the most grand slam quarter finals by a man.

Connors and Fed are currently tied with 41. Fed would obviously move to 42 with a QF appearance here.

 

[kOaMaster]

It'll not mean much.
It's all about winning Slams! He knows it too, of course.

Since Federer has 17 (3 more than the next best player) we don't need to dicuss this either.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

It's mindboggling.

He would have 9 straight years with 20 match wins, but walkovers (Mardy Fish - 2012 US Open 4th Round) are not counted as wins.

 

[newpball]

Congratulations to Federer on winning his 60th match at the French Open today! He has now won at least 60 matches at all four Grand Slams.

Great accomplishment, he surely will be remembered!

He was one of the greatest players in his heydays.

:grin:

 

[LazyNinja19]

I wonder why McEnroeisanartist didn't mention that Federer has played 22 more Slams(i.e. at least 5 times at each of the 4 Slams, on an average) than Nadal & Djokovic, when he tried to put down Nadal in his OP

 

[Fiji]

Very impressive.

 

[TMF]

I wonder why McEnroeisanartist didn't mention that Federer has played 22 more Slams(i.e. at least 5 times at each of the 4 Slams, on an average) than Nadal & Djokovic, when he tried to put down Nadal in his OP

If Nadal/Nole play 22 more times in the future and reached 60+ wins at all four slams, they will get the same praise. It's unlikely to happen since no player in the has done it. As of now, Roger is the only player to reach that milestone.