Grand Slam Wins as #1 Seed

[McEnroeisanartist]

In assessing a player's career, do you think it matters how many Grand Slams the player won as a #1 seed? Is it more impressive when a player is expected (seeded #1) to win a Grand Slam and then does it versus not being seeded #1 and winning a Grand Slam.

Federer has won 11 of his 17 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Sampras won 9 of his 14 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Nadal has won 3 of his 13 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Borg won 8 of his 11 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.

 

[DolgoSantoro]

Is it more impressive when a player is expected (seeded #1) to win a Grand Slam and then does it versus not being seeded #1 and winning a Grand Slam.

I'd view it as being more of the opposite, in that players who aren't seeded 1st are essentially exceeding what is expected of them.

Though the Nadal number skews things. I'd say that in virtually every Roland Garros title that he won except for his first one, he was the favorite upon entering the tournament.

I'd say that it's just not a useful metric to judge by for many reasons.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Seedings are only reflect the current ranking basically, not who is the form player or who is better on the surface they're about to play.

The better comparison would be how many players won a major when they were also the betting odds favourite.

In that more realistic scenario Nadal would go up to about 8 of his 13 and Federer would come down a couple. Sampras would probably be about the same imo.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Seedings are only reflect the current ranking basically, not who is the form player or who is better on the surface they're about to play.

The better comparison would be how many players won a major when they were also the betting odds favourite.

In that more realistic scenario Nadal would go up to about 8 of his 13 and Federer would come down a couple. Sampras would probably be about the same imo.

This is a very good point.

 

[mattennis]

We already know, man. Nadal doesn't win that much when he is the nº1 in the rankings.

 

[Tenez101]

Yes but Nadal was the essential no. 1 seed at every RG he played in. Not seeding Nadal no. 1 in any clay tournament is a joke, they should make a special exemption for him.

 

[West Coast Ace]

In assessing a player's career, do you think it matters how many Grand Slams the player won as a #1 seed? Is it more impressive when a player is expected (seeded #1) to win a Grand Slam and then does it versus not being seeded #1 and winning a Grand Slam.

Federer has won 11 of his 17 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Sampras won 9 of his 14 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Nadal has won 3 of his 13 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Borg won 8 of his 11 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.

What about #2 seed? In theory the 2 halves are equal. So to do your research you should pair 1/2, 3/4, 5/6...

 

[jg153040]

In assessing a player's career, do you think it matters how many Grand Slams the player won as a #1 seed? Is it more impressive when a player is expected (seeded #1) to win a Grand Slam and then does it versus not being seeded #1 and winning a Grand Slam.

Federer has won 11 of his 17 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Sampras won 9 of his 14 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Nadal has won 3 of his 13 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Borg won 8 of his 11 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.

You raise a good point. As nr.1 seed you have more pressure. Harder to win it.

 

[Chico]

In assessing a player's career, do you think it matters how many Grand Slams the player won as a #1 seed? Is it more impressive when a player is expected (seeded #1) to win a Grand Slam and then does it versus not being seeded #1 and winning a Grand Slam.

Federer has won 11 of his 17 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Sampras won 9 of his 14 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Nadal has won 3 of his 13 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.
Borg won 8 of his 11 Grand Slams as the #1 seed.

Really interesting stat.

 

[Mustard]

At 2010 Wimbledon, Nadal was world number 1 but not the number 1 seed.

 

[Cup8489]

Seedings are only reflect the current ranking basically, not who is the form player or who is better on the surface they're about to play.

The better comparison would be how many players won a major when they were also the betting odds favourite.

In that more realistic scenario Nadal would go up to about 8 of his 13 and Federer would come down a couple. Sampras would probably be about the same imo.

I think you'd find Federer would be the favorite at many more of the majors over his career after his first win than expected.