Federer has won the highest slams and lost the highest number of finals.

[Zain786]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

 

[RoddickAce]

In other words he made the most slam finals.

 

[eaglesburg]

But he had to get the whole way to the finals to lose there in the first place...
So he won the most semifinals.

Edit: RoddickAce beat me too it.

 

[CYGS]

With five/six years advantage (20/24 more slam opportunities), his numbers are comparable to Djokodal's at best.

 

[Cup8489]

With five/six years advantage (20/24 more slam opportunities), his numbers are comparable to Djokodal's at best.

So.. you're saying that Federer is somehow not performing well by matching that of his two greatest contemporaries COMBINED?

I wish I had that problem. I bet they both do too.

You crack me up.

 

[pat200]

Lendl lost 11 finals

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

So.. you're saying that Federer is somehow not performing well by matching that of his two greatest contemporaries COMBINED?

I wish I had that problem. I bet they both do too.

You crack me up.

I wouldn't waste my time with this phucken loser. I'm on his ignore list because I've hurt his feeble feelings.

Making the most amount of slam finals is a great stats no matter how many losses a certain player has.

 

[CYGS]

So.. you're saying that Federer is somehow not performing well by matching that of his two greatest contemporaries COMBINED?

I wish I had that problem. I bet they both do too.

You crack me up.

Reading Comprehension FAIL. Read again.

 

[Cup8489]

Reading Comprehension FAIL. Read again.

Nah, it's not worth my time to read more drivel.

 

[Gary20]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

Sampras, Nadal and Federer and Borg by far the best players i nthe biggest occasions. Sampras is +10, Nadal +8, Federer +7. Borg +6. Ive always said these 4 by a country mile the best 4 to have played tennis in the modern era.

 

[Gary20]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

What do you make of it out of interest?

 

[Zain786]

I can make out that Federer is 14-1 against his other rivals and 3-9 against Djokovic and Nadal. This is mind boggling to say the least. However I give credit where its due and Federer is the most accomplished player of all time at the moment. Some of his records will not be broken at all I think. He is definitely a top 3 player as is Nadal and when Djokovic comes to 12 - 14 slams he will be there also. Truth be told, those three are the three greatest players to have ever played the game. I sense history will also back this up, in the future these three guys will be revered for the number of titles, rivalries and records that they have broken. Never before have we seen dominance on this scale, I do not want to call it the big four era but the era of the big three...just imagine if these guys end up with the three highest tally in regards to slams...Fed at 17, Rafa at 16, Nole at 15..that would be crazy to say the least.

 

[Noleberic123]

Djokovic is second. Which is pretty bad

 

[ARFED]

Lendl has 11, so get your facts straight at least. By the way, those who say that having a high percentage of finals won is an important metric, are implying that Wawrinka is better than Murray. Common sense is too much to ask it seems

 

[Numero Uno]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

federers career has been 5 years longer than nadals and 6 years longer than novaks... off course he has more success

 

[xFedal]

I can make out that Federer is 14-1 against his other rivals and 3-9 against Djokovic and Nadal. This is mind boggling to say the least. However I give credit where its due and Federer is the most accomplished player of all time at the moment. Some of his records will not be broken at all I think. He is definitely a top 3 player as is Nadal and when Djokovic comes to 12 - 14 slams he will be there also. Truth be told, those three are the three greatest players to have ever played the game. I sense history will also back this up, in the future these three guys will be revered for the number of titles, rivalries and records that they have broken. Never before have we seen dominance on this scale, I do not want to call it the big four era but the era of the big three...just imagine if these guys end up with the three highest tally in regards to slams...Fed at 17, Rafa at 16, Nole at 15..that would be crazy to say the least.

When all is said and done, this will be the pecking order.


Fed;
Grass - 1
Hard - 2
Clay - 3

Nadal;
Grass - 3
Hard - 3
Clay - 1

Nole;
Grass - 2
Clay - 2
Hard - 1

 

[Deleted member 688153]

With five/six years advantage (20/24 more slam opportunities), his numbers are comparable to Djokodal's at best.

Yeah, definitely.

With Fed having not only the most slams but also the most extra finals, Nadal being done, and the clock already ticking on 28yo Djokovic, Fed's position is looking pretty good to me.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic is second. Which is pretty bad

Yeah but making all those extra finals is still better than going out in the early rounds and without them he wouldn't have 170+ weeks at number 1 so there's always a rainbow after the storm!

 

[Noleberic123]

Yeah but making all those extra finals is still better than going out in the early rounds and without them he wouldn't have 170+ weeks at number 1 so there's always a rainbow after the storm!

Since when are you so positive!

 

[duaneeo]

I can make out that Federer is 14-1 against his other rivals and 3-9 against Djokovic and Nadal. This is mind boggling to say the least.

You can make most players appear dominant over Federer in slam finals if you pair them with Nadal. Federer is 2-7 against Del Potro and Nadal. He's 3-6 against Agassi and Nadal. Hell, he's 2-6 against Wawrinka and Nadal.

 

[dadadas]

^ Cause Nadal beat Federer on clay for 4 times.

 

[SQA333]

His GS final win rate is solid but stops just short of being truly stellar.

 

[PeterHo]

Fed is leading in slams won and finals made.

You don't get penalised for reaching and losing a final. In fact, the more times he loses in final, the greater his legacy(more finals made). Better lose in final than 1st round.

Nole is doing well and is on track to feds numbers and we'll see how that goes. His conversion rate is not as good.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Its better to be in final and lose than not be in final at all.

 

[SeeYouOnTheOtherSide]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

Ok loser, here's a reality check.

He has had something along the lines of 80 grand slam appearances. He's made the final of 27 OF THEM! DO THE MATH!

When you are that good, you are a target.

 

[timnz]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

Lendl lost 11 finals. (BTW making a slam final is an achievement in itself).

 

[timnz]

Make of it what you will but here are the numbers -

GS WON - Open Era

1) Federer - 17
2) Sampras, Nadal - 14
3) Borg - 11
4) Djokovic - 10
5) Aggasi, Lendl, Connors - 8
6) Wilander, Mccenroe - 7
7) Becker, Edberg - 6

GS Finals Lost - Open Era

1) Federer - 10
2) Djokovic - 8
3) Connors, Aggasi - 7
4) Nadal - 6
5) Borg, Edberg - 5
6) Sampras, Becker, Wilander, Mccenroe - 4

Here is a question:

What is better - to win 17 finals and lose 10 Finals or to win 17 and lose 10 other slams in the first round? Most people would say that to make a slam final is a better performance than losing in the first round (the ATP included since it gives 1200 points to slam runner-ups). However, according to the metric above - then Federer would be on 17 slams finals won and 0 finals lost. 100% record! If that is better than 17/10 then losing in the first round > being a slam runner-up.

 

[timnz]

Its better to be in final and lose than not be in final at all.

Some people on this forum think it is better to lose in the first round of a slam than be runner-up at a slam - that way it doesn't affect your finals statistic. Or less extremely, better to lose a Slam semi-final if you are going to go on and lose the final, than win that semi-final and be runner-up. Hence semi-final loss > slam runner-up - because it doesn't affect your slams final percentage.

 

[mike danny]

Fed is leading in slams won and finals made.

You don't get penalised for reaching and losing a final. In fact, the more times he loses in final, the greater his legacy(more finals made). Better lose in final than 1st round.

Nole is doing well and is on track to feds numbers and we'll see how that goes. His conversion rate is not as good.

Finally somebody who believes that. Kudos to you, sir

 

[Hitman]

Fed is leading in slams won and finals made.

You don't get penalised for reaching and losing a final. In fact, the more times he loses in final, the greater his legacy(more finals made). Better lose in final than 1st round.

Nole is doing well and is on track to feds numbers and we'll see how that goes. His conversion rate is not as good.

He ultimately took over.