Grand Slam match losses to eventual champion - Comparing Murray/Wawrinka/Hewitt/Roddick

[McEnroeisanartist]

Grand Slam match losses to eventual champion - Comparing Murray/Wawrinka/Hewitt/Roddick (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open)

Murray - 13 (6, 3, 3 1)
Wawrinka - 5 (3, 2, 0, 0)
Hewitt - 14 (5, 4, 2, 3)
Roddick - 10 (1, 0, 5, 4)

 

[Goof]

Curious, do you have the same stat for Ferrer and Berdych (and maybe Tonga, Nalbandian, and others)?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

This is a very interesting thread.

I don't doubt that someone will quickly try to misuse certain stats as proof or disproof of whichever weak era he/she doesn't believe is weak...

 

[chicagodude]

No surprise.

Murray often ran into 1 of the big 3 on his way. He truly should've had at least 1 AO to be honest.
Roddick was unlucky to run into Fed so often. out of those 10, I think 7 of them were against Federer.....

Wawrinka, unsurprisingly, is the most likely to have a random loss against somebody who doesn't end up wining the title, it seems.

Hewitt is the only surprise for me, I had no idea he lost so many time against the eventual winner.

 

[duaneeo]

Hewitt is the only surprise for me, I had no idea he lost so many time against the eventual winner.

2004-2005 Federer won 5 slams and faced Hewitt in each one.

 

[T007]

Grand Slam match losses to eventual champion - Comparing Murray/Wawrinka/Hewitt/Roddick (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open)

Murray - 13 (6, 3, 3 1)
Wawrinka - 5 (3, 2, 0, 0)
Hewitt - 14 (5, 4, 2, 3)
Roddick - 10 (1, 0, 5, 4)

Hewitt and roddick 5+ slam guranteed champion

 

[NatF]

Poor Hewitt. Terrible luck especially at the AO.

 

[killerboss]

Poor Hewitt. Terrible luck especially at the AO.

His numbers are inflated by losing to Nadal at the French Open as early as the 3rd and 4th round, as well as losing to Fed and Djoko in some early rounds. Not quite the same as Murray losing to these guys in the semis and finals but yea still probably has something to do with luck.

 

[WildRevolver]

That tactical MTO cost Murray one AO, that's for sure.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

I think Berdych has the most losses to the eventual champion? Or is it Federer?

 

[duaneeo]

2014-2016 Wawrinka lost to eventual losers Federer (2), Murray, Del Potro, Nishikori, Raonic, Gasquet, and Lopez at the slams. Yet, he become the only player to beat a peak Djokovic at the AO, and beat him in the finals of RG and USO.

It's simply incredulous that Stan went from Big-3 pigeon/Tier-2 player to Nole kryptonite/3-time slam champion.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

His numbers are inflated by losing to Nadal at the French Open as early as the 3rd and 4th round, as well as losing to Fed and Djoko in some early rounds. Not quite the same as Murray losing to these guys in the semis and finals but yea still probably has something to do with luck.

Good point.

Just because he was no 1 years earlier doesn't mean he would have gone on to win a title when he was 5 rounds away from the title.

Murray was the one who got "robbed" the most, as he lost in QFs and later so many times.

Hewitt should have won another USO. 2000-2006 he reached always at least QF there. Plus his destruction of Sampras in 2001 proved that he can deliver when it counts.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

2014-2016 Wawrinka lost to eventual losers Federer (2), Murray, Del Potro, Nishikori, Raonic, Gasquet, and Lopez at the slams. Yet, he become the only player to beat a peak Djokovic at the AO, and beat him in the finals of RG and USO.

It's simply incredulous that Stan went from Big-3 pigeon/Tier-2 player to Nole kryptonite/3-time slam champion.

"Stan is an exception to every rule. Stan is never a good example for anything." - Confucius

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I think Berdych has the most losses to the eventual champion? Or is it Federer?

Berdych. Lost to eventual champs:

AO ------- Federer 17, 18, Wawrinka 14, Djokovic 11, 13
FO ------- Djokovic 16
W -------- Murray 16, Nadal 10, Federer 06
USO ----- Cilic 14, Murray 12

11 times.

Not the record holder.

 

[NatF]

His numbers are inflated by losing to Nadal at the French Open as early as the 3rd and 4th round, as well as losing to Fed and Djoko in some early rounds. Not quite the same as Murray losing to these guys in the semis and finals but yea still probably has something to do with luck.

His numbers would be higher if he could have stayed fit so swings and roundabouts.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

Berdych. Lost to eventual champs:

AO ------- Federer 17, 18, Wawrinka 14, Djokovic 11, 13
FO ------- Djokovic 16
W -------- Murray 16, Nadal 10, Federer 06
USO ----- Cilic 14, Murray 12

11 times.

Not the record holder.

Who holds the record? There used to have a thread here which had Lendl at about 22. But it was an old thread.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Who holds the record? There used to have a thread here which had Lendl at about 22. But it was an old thread.

If you can find this thread that would be great.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Who holds the record? There used to have a thread here which had Lendl at about 22. But it was an old thread.

I found this in a thread called "Biggest underachievers in history".

Lendl lost to the eventual winner of a Slam 22 times! 11 times in the finals plus these additional 11 Slams:

1. 1980 US Open, lost to McEnroe in QF
2. 1982 French Open, lost to Wilander in R16
3. 1983 French Open, lost to Yannick Noah in QF
4. 1985 Australian Open, lost to Edberg in SF
5. 1989 French Open, lost to Chang in R16
6. 1989 Wimbledon, lost in semis to Becker
7. 1990 Wimbledon, lost in SF to Edberg
8. 1990 US Open, lost in QF to Sampras
9. 1991 US Open, lost in SF to to Edberg
10. 1992 US Open, lost in QF to Edberg
11. 1994 Australian Open, lost in R16 to Sampras

So 30 Slams went through Lendl and he wound up winning only 8 of them. I guess he could be seen as an underachiever!

 

[Blahovic]

No surprise.

Murray often ran into 1 of the big 3 on his way. He truly should've had at least 1 AO to be honest.
Roddick was unlucky to run into Fed so often. out of those 10, I think 7 of them were against Federer.....

Wawrinka, unsurprisingly, is the most likely to have a random loss against somebody who doesn't end up wining the title, it seems.

Hewitt is the only surprise for me, I had no idea he lost so many time against the eventual winner.

Wawrinka was also a contender for far less time than Murray. First final in 2014, last in 2017. Murray's first final was in 2009 and last was in 2016.

Wawrinka played 4 slam finals and Murray played 11. And Murray probably has like 15 or so more slam SFs than Wawrinka.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Wawrinka was also a contender for far less time than Murray. First final in 2014, last in 2017. Murray's first final was in 2009 and last was in 2016.

Wawrinka played 4 slam finals and Murray played 11. And Murray probably has like 15 or so more slam SFs than Wawrinka.

There is no point in comparing Stan to anyone. He completely defies all rules and logic.

Besides, he and Murray are polar opposites:

Stan ultra-clutch in slams: 3-1

Murray ultra-pigeon: 3-8

Stan hopeless in M1000s: 1 title only

Murray brilliant at M1000s: 14 titles

Stan, relatively brief period in top 10.

Murray, almost a decade in top 10.

Stan, very good vs Big 3 at slams.

Murray, mostly a pigeon vs Big 3 at slams.

Stan, started his peak aged 28.

Murray, started his best aged 20 or 21.

 

[InsideOut900]

There is no point in comparing Stan to anyone. He completely defies all rules and logic.

Besides, he and Murray are polar opposites:

Stan ultra-clutch in slams: 3-1

Murray ultra-pigeon: 3-8

Stan hopeless in M1000s: 1 title only

Murray brilliant at M1000s: 14 titles

Stan, relatively brief period in top 10.

Murray, almost a decade in top 10.

I personally call Stan the Roddick of this era, whatever trolls tell me about the Slam count.

Very good at 2 Slams, good at a 3rd Slam, bad at the other, both relatively the same number of title worthy runs in Majors.

Meanwhile, Murray is Hewitt with more longevity.

 

[duaneeo]

Stan, very good vs Big 3 at slams.

He's very good against Djokovic at slams.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

He's very good against Djokovic at slams.

True, he may not be so great vs RF and Nadal, pretty much similar to Murray.

That was the only stat I wasn't sure about.

 

[Deleted member 765728]

His numbers are inflated by losing to Nadal at the French Open as early as the 3rd and 4th round, as well as losing to Fed and Djoko in some early rounds. Not quite the same as Murray losing to these guys in the semis and finals but yea still probably has something to do with luck.

Between 2004-2005, Hewitt lost to eventual champion at each Slam he played except for the 2005 FO, wouldn't say his numbers were inflated. He showed a high level consistency and there haven't been many similar examples in tennis.

 

[mike danny]

Wawrinka was also a contender for far less time than Murray. First final in 2014, last in 2017. Murray's first final was in 2009 and last was in 2016.

Wawrinka played 4 slam finals and Murray played 11. And Murray probably has like 15 or so more slam SFs than Wawrinka.

Technically Murray's first final was in 2008.

Stan also became a contender in 2013. Can't ignore those Djokovic matches at the HC slams.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Tsonga:

AO -------- Djokovic 08, 19, Federer 10
FO -------- Wawrinka 15
W --------- Murray 12, 16, Djokovic 11, 14

8 times.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Ferrer:

AO -------- Djokovic 08, 12, 13
FO -------- Nadal 05, 12, 13, 14
W --------- Murray 12

8 times.

Fun fact: Ferrer never played Federer in a slam despite playing 17 times with him.

Also notice how many losses are from 12-14, that was Ferrer's "shoulda won a slam" period.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Ferrer:

AO -------- Djokovic 08, 12, 13
FO -------- Nadal 05, 12, 13, 14
W --------- Murray 12

8 times.

Fun fact: Ferrer never played Federer in a slam despite playing 17 times with him.

Also notice how many losses are from 12-14, that was Ferrer's "shoulda won a slam" period.

Ferrer was never a threat to the big boys like Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Delpo were. It was NID when he played one of the big 3.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Federer ate Lleyton up like semi-soggy cinnamon toast crunch

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Safin:

AO -------- Federer 04, Johansson 02
W --------- Federer 07, Ivanisevic 01
USO ------ Sampras 98

5 times.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Federer ate Lleyton up like semi-soggy cinnamon toast crunch

Nadal saved the tour honestly. Fed would’ve won like 3 consecutive calendar slams. lol

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal saved the tour honestly. Fed would’ve won like 3 consecutive calendar slams. lol

That is precisely what made me a fan. Fed had tennis in a damn sleeper hold. Nadal ran up behind him and RKO'd him in an epic kit

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Isner:

FO ------- Nadal 11
USO ----- Federer 07

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Soderling:

FO -------- Nadal 06, 10, 11, Federer 09
W --------- Nadal 10

5 times.

It's pretty obvious why he hated Nadal so much...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Monfils:

FO -------- Federer 09

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Kohlschreiber:

W --------- Djokovic 15, 19, Federer 09
USO ------ Nadal 13

4 times.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic/Nishikori? Berdych?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Almagro:

AO -------- Djokovic 11
FO -------- Nadal 08, 10, 12

4 times.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Henman:

FO -------- Ferrero 03
W --------- Federer 06, Hewitt 02, Ivanisevic 01, Sampras 95, 98, 99
USO ------ Federer 04, 06, Roddick 03

10 times.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

@UnderratedSlam So does the record belong to Lendl?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

@UnderratedSlam So does the record belong to Lendl?

That user claims he is, I don't know.

It's very likely because he lost 11 slam finals plus had a very long and successful career during a strong era when he played other slam champs often.

 

[NeutralFan]

Misleading stats unless you are losing to eventual winner in semi or final. come up with those stats then pic will be clear.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Federer - 21
AO - 6, French - 7, Wimbledon - 4, US Open - 4

djokovic - 21
AO - 3, French - 9, Wimbledon - 2, US Open - 7

nadal - 10
AO - 4, French - 1, Wimbledon - 4, US Open - 1

 

[FRV4]

This is a very interesting thread.

I don't doubt that someone will quickly try to misuse certain stats as proof or disproof of whichever weak era he/she doesn't believe is weak...

What’s the other purpose? Just stare in awe?

 

[Deleted member 756514]

Federer - 21
AO - 6, French - 7, Wimbledon - 4, US Open - 4

djokovic - 21
AO - 3, French - 9, Wimbledon - 2, US Open - 7

nadal - 10
AO - 4, French - 1, Wimbledon - 4, US Open - 1

Nadal has I think 4 at AO (12,14,17,19), 1 at RG (21), 4 at Wim (06,07,11,18), 2 at USO (09, 11)

So just 3 more in addition to the 8 finals. How do you interpret that?