Federer and Records at this year's French Open

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Has anyone else noticed how many records that Federer could set at this year's French Open.

If he wins his first round, he will overtake Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam match wins.

If he reaches the quarterfinals, he will become the only player to have reached the quarterfinals of a grand slam at least 9 times at three different grand slams.

If he reaches the semifinals, he will tie Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam semifinals appearances. He will have reached the semifinals of a grand slam at least 7 times at all four grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 6 times.

If he reaches the finals, he will become the only player to have reached the finals of a grand slam at least 6 times at three different grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 5 times (and at all four grand slams).

If he wins the tournament, he becomes the only player in the open era to win all four grand slams at least twice. He would tie Guillermo Vilas for most match wins at the French Open, which means he would have the most match wins at the Australian Open and the French Open, his two weakest Grand Slams.

WOW.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Connors played so many years, and for Fed to surpass him at 30 is amazing. Goat title will continue to lean toward him.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
I agree, another RG title in Fed's major collection would be really nice. Last year he could've won if he didn't bend over for the Ralph as usual.
Dont see him reaching the finals this year though.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Continue to lean? I wouldn't dare to ask you who the GOAT is.

Yes. Most fans around the world already picked him. As long as he add more records, the more fans will pick him. Goatness are based on the sheer number of fans have on one player. That's my point.
 

Arafel

Professional
Connors played so many years, and for Fed to surpass him at 30 is amazing. Goat title will continue to lean toward him.

Not really. Connors stopped playing the Australian Open after 1975, and skipped the French from 74-78, once from being banned, the others to get back at the French Federation for banning him. He also skipped the French in 86 and 88, plus he missed the entire 1990 season. So what is really amazing is that Connors essentially set that record playing 2.5 slams.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Not really. Connors stopped playing the Australian Open after 1975, and skipped the French from 74-78, once from being banned, the others to get back at the French Federation for banning him. He also skipped the French in 86 and 88, plus he missed the entire 1990 season. So what is really amazing is that Connors essentially set that record playing 2.5 slams.

I think it's even as Connors was still reaching QF/SF in majors on a consistent basis until he was 39 or so.

Also, I think Fed can go on and win another 80 matches in majors if he wants to.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Connors played so many years, and for Fed to surpass him at 30 is amazing. Goat title will continue to lean toward him.

Federer has played 51 majors to Connors' 57. That's a more accurate way to look at it than years, considering that Connors only played the Australian Open twice and the French Open 13 times when compared to 20 Wimbledons and 22 US Opens.
 
Last edited:

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Federer has played 51 majors to Connors' 57. That's a more accurate way to look at it than years, considering that Connors only played the Australian Open twice and the French Open 13 times when compared to 20 Wimbledons and 22 US Opens.

Still the same in the end, though. Of course, should Federer fail to win a single match in the next seven majors, and then retire, Connors would keep this "record". Not sure many people would bet on that, though... ;)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
^^
Those are all good points. I want to add that winning number of matches in the deeper rounds vs. earlier rounds is also a good metric. It's tougher to win in the late round.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Santoro played a lot of slam events too, but most of his wins are in the early round. We should put more weight on matches that are in the deeper round.
 
M

monfed

Guest
Has anyone else noticed how many records that Federer could set at this year's French Open.

If he wins his first round, he will overtake Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam match wins.

If he reaches the quarterfinals, he will become the only player to have reached the quarterfinals of a grand slam at least 9 times at three different grand slams.

If he reaches the semifinals, he will tie Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam semifinals appearances. He will have reached the semifinals of a grand slam at least 7 times at all four grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 6 times.

If he reaches the finals, he will become the only player to have reached the finals of a grand slam at least 6 times at three different grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 5 times (and at all four grand slams).

If he wins the tournament, he becomes the only player in the open era to win all four grand slams at least twice. He would tie Guillermo Vilas for most match wins at the French Open, which means he would have the most match wins at the Australian Open and the French Open, his two weakest Grand Slams.

WOW.


Out of this post, the significant records look like -

- most grandslam match wins

-most grandslam semis tied with Connors

- all 4 GS atleast twice.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Here are their records:

Jimmy Connors
1970 US Open: Round of 128 Loser
1971 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser (didn't play as he gave a walkover to his opponent)
1971 US Open: Round of 64 Loser
1972 French Open: Round of 32 Loser
1972 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
1972 US Open: Round of 128 Loser
1973 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
1973 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
1973 US Open: Quarter Final Loser
1974 Australian Open: CHAMPION
1974 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1974 US Open: CHAMPION
1975 Australian Open: Runner-up
1975 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1975 US Open: Runner-up
1976 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
1976 US Open: CHAMPION
1977 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1977 US Open: Runner-up
1978 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1978 US Open: CHAMPION
1979 French Open: Semi Final Loser
1979 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
1979 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1980 French Open: Semi Final Loser
1980 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
1980 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1981 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
1981 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
1981 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1982 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
1982 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1982 US Open: CHAMPION
1983 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
1983 Wimbledon: Round of 16 Loser
1983 US Open: CHAMPION
1984 French Open: Semi Final Loser
1984 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1984 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1985 French Open: Semi Final Loser
1985 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
1985 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1986 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
1986 US Open: Round of 32 Loser
1987 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
1987 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser
1987 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1988 Wimbledon: Round of 16 Loser
1988 US Open: Quarter Final Loser
1989 French Open: Round of 64 Loser
1989 Wimbledon: Round of 64 Loser
1989 US Open: Quarter Final Loser
1991 French Open: Round of 32 Loser
1991 Wimbledon: Round of 32 Loser
1991 US Open: Semi Final Loser
1992 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
1992 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
1992 US Open: Round of 64 Loser


Roger Federer
1999 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
1999 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
2000 Australian Open: Round of 32 Loser
2000 French Open: Round of 16 Loser
2000 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
2000 US Open: Round of 32 Loser
2001 Australian Open: Round of 32 Loser
2001 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
2001 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
2001 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
2002 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser
2002 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
2002 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser
2002 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
2003 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser
2003 French Open: Round of 128 Loser
2003 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
2003 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
2004 Australian Open: CHAMPION
2004 French Open: Round of 32 Loser
2004 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
2004 US Open: CHAMPION
2005 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
2005 French Open: Semi Final Loser
2005 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
2005 US Open: CHAMPION
2006 Australian Open: CHAMPION
2006 French Open: Runner-up
2006 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
2006 US Open: CHAMPION
2007 Australian Open: CHAMPION
2007 French Open: Runner-up
2007 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
2007 US Open: CHAMPION
2008 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
2008 French Open: Runner-up
2008 Wimbledon: Runner-up
2008 US Open: CHAMPION
2009 Australian Open: Runner-up
2009 French Open: CHAMPION
2009 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
2009 US Open: Runner-up
2010 Australian Open: CHAMPION
2010 French Open: Quarter Final Loser
2010 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
2010 US Open: Semi Final Loser
2011 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
2011 French Open: Runner-up
2011 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser
2011 US Open: Semi Final Loser
2012 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser
 
Has anyone else noticed how many records that Federer could set at this year's French Open.

If he wins his first round, he will overtake Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam match wins.

If he reaches the quarterfinals, he will become the only player to have reached the quarterfinals of a grand slam at least 9 times at three different grand slams.

If he reaches the semifinals, he will tie Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam semifinals appearances. He will have reached the semifinals of a grand slam at least 7 times at all four grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 6 times.

If he reaches the finals, he will become the only player to have reached the finals of a grand slam at least 6 times at three different grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 5 times (and at all four grand slams).

If he wins the tournament, he becomes the only player in the open era to win all four grand slams at least twice. He would tie Guillermo Vilas for most match wins at the French Open, which means he would have the most match wins at the Australian Open and the French Open, his two weakest Grand Slams.

WOW.
The whole GOAT conversation is stupid. It gives crazy *******s such as the one I quoted a moment ago the opportunity to unleash their craziness and bring down the quality and enjoyment of the forum.
GOAT conversation is pointless because it's all subjective. I'm content with Federer being one of the best, I dont have a gigantic need to prove him number 1. Who cares that much, honestly?
Didn't realize any of that was going on... i'm pretty surprised.
Just thought this was funny, in a way.
 
D

decades

Guest
pretty meaningless considering the AO and FO only became essential recentley. skews things pretty radically.
 

Feather

Legend
Has anyone else noticed how many records that Federer could set at this year's French Open.

If he wins his first round, he will overtake Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam match wins.

If he reaches the quarterfinals, he will become the only player to have reached the quarterfinals of a grand slam at least 9 times at three different grand slams.

If he reaches the semifinals, he will tie Jimmy Connors for the most Grand Slam semifinals appearances. He will have reached the semifinals of a grand slam at least 7 times at all four grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 6 times.

If he reaches the finals, he will become the only player to have reached the finals of a grand slam at least 6 times at three different grand slams. He is the only player to have achieved this 5 times (and at all four grand slams).

If he wins the tournament, he becomes the only player in the open era to win all four grand slams at least twice. He would tie Guillermo Vilas for most match wins at the French Open, which means he would have the most match wins at the Australian Open and the French Open, his two weakest Grand Slams.

WOW.

Great ! Roger Federer is gonna create history this time at RG
 

1HBH Rocks

Semi-Pro
weak era..

Or strong Federer? Both can be justified with a major difference between the leader and the rest... how do you go from a major difference to the conclusion that it's a weak era? As far as I can tell saying X-Y=4 doesn't tell much about either X or Y, except that X, relative to Y, is greater by 4 units and Y, relative X, is smaller by 4 units. Same with trophies and results: by them, you can tell how much better versus the rest Federer was, but you can't weight the value of each sides on the virtue of it.

However, Federer is still number 3 at 30 (nearly 31), still competes with the best players and does it, unlike people before him, in what is BY VERY VERY VERY far the most physically demanding era of all times. If it was just because he had an easy time, now that he has more than fair competition and that he's old in the rough times of baseline bashers, we'd expect him to struggle. But he still outdoes his predecessors at the same age... why? Because your hypothesis doesn't hold up to this fact. How many players won the year end title right in the face of the 7 other best players while they were 30? He won two of them in a row at 29 and 30.

He simply was too good of a competitor... he made other people look weak which isn't the same.
 
Or strong Federer? Both can be justified with a major difference between the leader and the rest... how do you go from a major difference to the conclusion that it's a weak era? As far as I can tell saying X-Y=4 doesn't tell much about either X or Y, except that X, relative to Y, is greater by 4 units and Y, relative X, is smaller by 4 units. Same with trophies and results: by them, you can tell how much better versus the rest Federer was, but you can't weight the value of each sides on the virtue of it.

However, Federer is still number 3 at 30 (nearly 31), still competes with the best players and does it, unlike people before him, in what is BY VERY VERY VERY far the most physically demanding era of all times. If it was just because he had an easy time, now that he has more than fair competition and that he's old in the rough times of baseline bashers, we'd expect him to struggle. But he still outdoes his predecessors at the same age... why? Because your hypothesis doesn't hold up to this fact. How many players won the year end title right in the face of the 7 other best players while they were 30? He won two of them in a row at 29 and 30.

He simply was too good of a competitor... he made other people look weak which isn't the same.

I don't understand why you even bother....trolls gonna troll anyway.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
Or strong Federer? Both can be justified with a major difference between the leader and the rest... how do you go from a major difference to the conclusion that it's a weak era? As far as I can tell saying X-Y=4 doesn't tell much about either X or Y, except that X, relative to Y, is greater by 4 units and Y, relative X, is smaller by 4 units. Same with trophies and results: by them, you can tell how much better versus the rest Federer was, but you can't weight the value of each sides on the virtue of it.

However, Federer is still number 3 at 30 (nearly 31), still competes with the best players and does it, unlike people before him, in what is BY VERY VERY VERY far the most physically demanding era of all times. If it was just because he had an easy time, now that he has more than fair competition and that he's old in the rough times of baseline bashers, we'd expect him to struggle. But he still outdoes his predecessors at the same age... why? Because your hypothesis doesn't hold up to this fact. How many players won the year end title right in the face of the 7 other best players while they were 30? He won two of them in a row at 29 and 30.

He simply was too good of a competitor... he made other people look weak which isn't the same.

Tennis_pro is a fed fanatic who was being sarcastic, you are preaching to the quire. Incidentally I love the X-Y analogy, very well put mathematically.
 

1HBH Rocks

Semi-Pro
Santoro played a lot of slam events too, but most of his wins are in the early round. We should put more weight on matches that are in the deeper round.

The number of matches won versus the number of GS entry rules early rounders out right away, except for players who were really not that regular in their performance. Let's look for how Federer and Connors did and let's just compare them. Let's use the current points the ATP gives for each round and make the grand total to compare who got the highest points per tournament entry.

2000 Winner
1200 Runner-up
720 Semi-final
360 Quarter finals
180 4th Round
90 3rd Round
45 2nd Round
10 1st Round

Federer has 6 x first Rounds, 0 x second Round, 4 x third Rounds, 6 x fourth Rounds, 5 x Quarter finals, 7 x Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 16 Titles for 51 tournament main draws. So, it adds up to 48 740pts or an average of 956pts per main draw entry.

Connors has 7 x first Round, 5 x second Rounds, 3 x third Rounds, 2 x fourth Rounds, 10 x Quarter finals, 16 Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 9 Titles for 59 tournament main draws. It adds up to 42 445pts or an average of 719pts per main draw entry.

Provided the assumption that the points are attributed in a more or less representative way of their relative weight, we can say that Federer has been better than Connors and in less time.
 
Last edited:

Feather

Legend
Or strong Federer? Both can be justified with a major difference between the leader and the rest... how do you go from a major difference to the conclusion that it's a weak era? As far as I can tell saying X-Y=4 doesn't tell much about either X or Y, except that X, relative to Y, is greater by 4 units and Y, relative X, is smaller by 4 units. Same with trophies and results: by them, you can tell how much better versus the rest Federer was, but you can't weight the value of each sides on the virtue of it.

However, Federer is still number 3 at 30 (nearly 31), still competes with the best players and does it, unlike people before him, in what is BY VERY VERY VERY far the most physically demanding era of all times. If it was just because he had an easy time, now that he has more than fair competition and that he's old in the rough times of baseline bashers, we'd expect him to struggle. But he still outdoes his predecessors at the same age... why? Because your hypothesis doesn't hold up to this fact. How many players won the year end title right in the face of the 7 other best players while they were 30? He won two of them in a row at 29 and 30.

He simply was too good of a competitor... he made other people look weak which isn't the same.

I must say I loved the X-Y analogy. Very well put :)
 

1HBH Rocks

Semi-Pro
Tennis_pro is a fed fanatic who was being sarcastic, you are preaching to the quire. Incidentally I love the X-Y analogy, very well put mathematically.

I am preaching to the choir (hallway), not to the quire (a notebook). Just to get it straight, but I do not mean to offend... People often have more opinions that they cherish about humans than about numbers, so when you have them use numbers and algebra, you can have them see what is fallacious and what is not more easily. It doesn't always work, but in this case it does work well.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
weak era..

Ha ha. Following this logic...the accomplishments of Ralph and Djoker should be written off as well as they were around for a good portion of this "weak era". As for Sampras, I have heard many on these boards proclaim his era was weak too. I guess that leaves Laver as GOAT then. Of course most of you opining on these boards weren't even a glimmer in your parents' eyes when Laver dominated the game.

"Anchoring" - overweighting recent experience.
"Selective Memory" - recalling only events consistent with your understanding of the past.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The number of matches won versus the number of GS entry rules early rounders out right away, except for players who were really not that regular in their performance. Let's look for how Federer and Connors did and let's just compare them. Let's use the current points the ATP gives for each round and make the grand total to compare who got the highest points per tournament entry.

2000 Winner
1200 Runner-up
720 Semi-final
360 Quarter finals
180 4th Round
90 3rd Round
45 2nd Round
10 1st Round

Federer has 6 x first Rounds, 0 x second Round, 4 x third Rounds, 6 x fourth Rounds, 5 x Quarter finals, 7 x Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 16 Titles for 51 tournament main draws. So, it adds up to 48 740pts or an average of 956pts per main draw entry.

Connors has 7 x first Round, 5 x second Rounds, 3 x third Rounds, 2 x fourth Rounds, 10 x Quarter finals, 16 Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 9 Titles for 59 tournament main draws. It adds up to 42 445pts or an average of 719pts per main draw entry.

Provided the assumption that the points are attributed in a more or less representative way of their relative weight, we can say that Federer has been better than Connors and in less time.

Wow! Thanks for the effort and time to come up with this data.

Just one point on the bolded part...didn't Connors won 8 slams?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Connors has 7 x first Round, 5 x second Rounds, 3 x third Rounds, 2 x fourth Rounds, 10 x Quarter finals, 16 Semi-finals, 7 Finals, 9 Titles for 59 tournament main draws. It adds up to 42 445pts or an average of 719pts per main draw entry.

8 titles for Connors out of 58 tournament main draws.
 
Top