Hardest Slam path ever

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
<15.0 average opponent's ranking (geometric mean) in Slams until the final (in bold Slams won):

2007 AO Gonzalez 10.5
1979 RG Pecci 10.9
1986 UO Mecir / 2014 AO Wawrinka 11.1
2009 RG Soderling 11.8
2006 AO Baghdatis 12.1
2013 RG Nadal 12.4
2015 UO Federer 12.6
1977 WI Borg 12.7
2001 UO Sampras / 2007 WI Nadal 12.8
2011 RG Federer 12.9
1979 UO McEnroe / 2004 AO Safin 13.0
2008 UO Murray 13.1
1987 RG Wilander / 1991 WI Stich / 2011 AO Djokovic / 2014 UO Nishikori 13.4
1981 WI Borg 13.5
1986 RG Pernfors 13.6
2008 AO Tsonga 13.7
1983 AO Wilander 13.8
2014 RG Djokovic 14.0
1976 UO Borg / 2015 RG Wawrinka / 2019 WI Federer 14.2
1974 WI Rosewall / 2009 UO Del Potro 14.3
2009 AO Federer 14.4
1997 AO Moya / 2016 WI Raonic 14.7
2013 WI Djokovic 14.9

It's crazy how many of these were losses: 24 out of 33! o_O
 

buscemi

Legend
Interesting. How many on that list beat the #1 ranked player before making the final? 2009 RG Soderling. 2013 RG Nadal. 2008 UO Murray. 1991 WI Stich. 2014 UO Nishikori. Anyone else?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Pete Sampras USO 1990 is probably the hardest path to a Slam title ever. Sampras had to defeat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi in a row.

We cannot ignore ELO inflation, the phenomenon by which players from the present always have higher ELO rating than players from the past. Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras and it doesn't mean that his level was superior. It only means that Murray could inflate his ELO with victories against the Big 3, while Sampras could not increase his ELO as much because his victories were against players with lower ELO rating. The same phenomenon occurs in chess, players from the present have higher ELO than in the past due to ELO inflation. Yet, no one claims that a contemporary player like Aronian is stronger than a legend like Fisher only because the first achieved a higher peak ELO with the ELO inflation.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
>50.0 (since ATP Ranking was made) excluding pre-1983 AO:

1982 RG Vilas 87.5
1981 RG Borg 71.4
2000 WI Sampras 69.2
1984 AO Wilander 64.4
1982 WI McEnroe 64.1
1974 RG Borg 59.4
1987 AO Edberg 58.0

1989 AO Mecir 56.9
2017 UO Nadal 56.5
1982 WI Connors 52.5
1999 RG Agassi 50.3

8 wins in 11 finals here, instead.
 

buscemi

Legend
Pete Sampras USO 1990 is probably the hardest path to a Slam title ever. Sampras had to defeat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi in a row.

We cannot ignore ELO inflation, the phenomenon by which players from the present always have higher ELO rating than players from the past. Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras and it doesn't mean that his level was superior. It only means that Murray could inflate his ELO with victories against the Big 3, while Sampras could not increase his ELO as much because his victories were against players with lower ELO rating. The same phenomenon occurs in chess, players from the present have higher ELO than in the past due to ELO inflation. Yet, no one claims that a contemporary player like Aronian is stronger than a legend like Fisher only because the first achieved a higher peak ELO with the ELO inflation.

McEnroe at the 1980 U.S. Open and Stich at Wimbledon 1991 would have to be up there.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Er - given they're (according to you) the "hardest slam paths ever", it's hardly a surprise that the players in question end up losing at some point, child.
But in this forum the ranking doesn't say anything about form. Am I right, idiot?
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Pete Sampras USO 1990 is probably the hardest path to a Slam title ever. Sampras had to defeat Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi in a row.

We cannot ignore ELO inflation, the phenomenon by which players from the present always have higher ELO rating than players from the past. Murray has a higher peak ELO than Sampras and it doesn't mean that his level was superior. It only means that Murray could inflate his ELO with victories against the Big 3, while Sampras could not increase his ELO as much because his victories were against players with lower ELO rating. The same phenomenon occurs in chess, players from the present have higher ELO than in the past due to ELO inflation. Yet, no one claims that a contemporary player like Aronian is stronger than a legend like Fisher only because the first achieved a higher peak ELO with the ELO inflation.
This thread is not about Elo, LOL.

1990 UO Sampras' opponents had a high ranking (15.8) but none of those great players (Muster, Lendl, Mac, Agassi) was at his peak in 1990.
 

Shaolin

Talk Tennis Guru
<15.0 average opponent's ranking (geometric mean) in Slams until the final (in bold Slams won):

2007 AO Gonzalez 10.5
1979 RG Pecci 10.9
1986 UO Mecir / 2014 AO Wawrinka 11.1
2009 RG Soderling 11.8
2006 AO Baghdatis 12.1
2013 RG Nadal 12.4
2015 UO Federer 12.6
1977 WI Borg 12.7
2001 UO Sampras / 2007 WI Nadal 12.8
2011 RG Federer 12.9
1979 UO McEnroe / 2004 AO Safin 13.0
2008 UO Murray 13.1
1987 RG Wilander / 1991 WI Stich / 2011 AO Djokovic / 2014 UO Nishikori 13.4
1981 WI Borg 13.5
1986 RG Pernfors 13.6
2008 AO Tsonga 13.7
1983 AO Wilander 13.8
2014 RG Djokovic 14.0
1976 UO Borg / 2015 RG Wawrinka / 2019 WI Federer 14.2
1974 WI Rosewall / 2009 UO Del Potro 14.3
2009 AO Federer 14.4
1997 AO Moya / 2016 WI Raonic 14.7
2013 WI Djokovic 14.9

It's crazy how many of these were losses: 24 out of 33! o_O

What a stupid list.

Doesn't include Ivanisevic 2001 W, the toughest slam draw ever. An absolute murder's row of slam winners/#1s.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
But in this forum the ranking doesn't say anything about form. Am I right, idiot?

Haha, you really don't like being addressed as "child", do you? Touched a nerve perhaps (I suspect you're probably a teenager, given your recent obsession with tennis and attempts to gain respect on this forum via stats).

High ranking doesn't necessarily indicate a player is in good form, obviously. Ranking generally lags behind form.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Ranking is not always correlated with form. A player can be injured despite his high ranking, as we saw with Nadal at the AO 2014 final or Federer at WB 2016.
 
D

Deleted member 769694

Guest
<15.0 average opponent's ranking (geometric mean) in Slams until the final (in bold Slams won):

2007 AO Gonzalez 10.5
1979 RG Pecci 10.9
1986 UO Mecir / 2014 AO Wawrinka 11.1
2009 RG Soderling 11.8
2006 AO Baghdatis 12.1
2013 RG Nadal 12.4
2015 UO Federer 12.6
1977 WI Borg 12.7
2001 UO Sampras / 2007 WI Nadal 12.8
2011 RG Federer 12.9
1979 UO McEnroe / 2004 AO Safin 13.0
2008 UO Murray 13.1
1987 RG Wilander / 1991 WI Stich / 2011 AO Djokovic / 2014 UO Nishikori 13.4
1981 WI Borg 13.5
1986 RG Pernfors 13.6
2008 AO Tsonga 13.7
1983 AO Wilander 13.8
2014 RG Djokovic 14.0
1976 UO Borg / 2015 RG Wawrinka / 2019 WI Federer 14.2
1974 WI Rosewall / 2009 UO Del Potro 14.3
2009 AO Federer 14.4
1997 AO Moya / 2016 WI Raonic 14.7
2013 WI Djokovic 14.9

It's crazy how many of these were losses: 24 out of 33! o_O

Wimbledon and the french shouldnt be listed because they are specialized surfaces. Many highly ranked clay players would lose at wimbledon just like the aggressive high ranked players would lose at the french.
 

Pheasant

Legend
Nadal's 2017 AO draw was very tough. Granted, it doesn't look great because Federer's 17th seed placing makes him look like a scrub. Oh great, Nadal gets this scrub seeded 17th in the final. How allegedly lucky is that? Never mind the fact that Federer had made the semis 13 times in the last 14 AO tourneys held(includes 2017 AO).

Nadal faced:
Zverev: seeded 23rd
Monfils: seeded 6th
Raonic: seeded 3rd. Nadal stream-rolled Raonic in straight sets
Dimitrov: seeded 15th
Federer: Seeded 17th.

Federer was no ordinary 17th seed. 5th-seeded Nishikori complained that he got a bad break by facing Federer so darn early(prior to QF). As Nishi said, Federer being a 17th seed is a joke.

Examples like these can throw ELO ratings out the window.
 

EdSWright

Professional
<15.0 average opponent's ranking (geometric mean) in Slams until the final (in bold Slams won):

2007 AO Gonzalez 10.5
1979 RG Pecci 10.9
1986 UO Mecir / 2014 AO Wawrinka 11.1
2009 RG Soderling 11.8
2006 AO Baghdatis 12.1
2013 RG Nadal 12.4
2015 UO Federer 12.6
1977 WI Borg 12.7
2001 UO Sampras / 2007 WI Nadal 12.8
2011 RG Federer 12.9
1979 UO McEnroe / 2004 AO Safin 13.0
2008 UO Murray 13.1
1987 RG Wilander / 1991 WI Stich / 2011 AO Djokovic / 2014 UO Nishikori 13.4
1981 WI Borg 13.5
1986 RG Pernfors 13.6
2008 AO Tsonga 13.7
1983 AO Wilander 13.8
2014 RG Djokovic 14.0
1976 UO Borg / 2015 RG Wawrinka / 2019 WI Federer 14.2
1974 WI Rosewall / 2009 UO Del Potro 14.3
2009 AO Federer 14.4
1997 AO Moya / 2016 WI Raonic 14.7
2013 WI Djokovic 14.9

It's crazy how many of these were losses: 24 out of 33! o_O
What? Why?
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon and the french shouldnt be listed because they are specialized surfaces. Many highly ranked clay players would lose at wimbledon just like the aggressive high ranked players would lose at the french.
Actually half of them (16/33) were RG or WI, so high ranked opponent go deep there too.
 
D

Deleted member 769694

Guest
Nadal's 2017 AO draw was very tough. Granted, it doesn't look great because Federer's 17th seed placing makes him look like a scrub. Oh great, Nadal gets this scrub seeded 17th in the final. How allegedly lucky is that? Never mind the fact that Federer had made the semis 13 times in the last 14 AO tourneys held(includes 2017 AO).

Nadal faced:
Zverev: seeded 23rd
Monfils: seeded 6th
Raonic: seeded 3rd. Nadal stream-rolled Raonic in straight sets
Dimitrov: seeded 15th
Federer: Seeded 17th.

Federer was no ordinary 17th seed. 5th-seeded Nishikori complained that he got a bad break by facing Federer so darn early(prior to QF). As Nishi said, Federer being a 17th seed is a joke.

Examples like these can throw ELO ratings out the window.

Monfils, Raonic, zverev and dimi?? :-D:-D:-D
 
D

Deleted member 629564

Guest
No wins for Federer? Surprise surprise.

4V5KbF7.png
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
>50.0 (since ATP Ranking was made) excluding pre-1983 AO:

1982 RG Vilas 87.5
1981 RG Borg 71.4
2000 WI Sampras 69.2
1984 AO Wilander 64.4
1982 WI McEnroe 64.1
1974 RG Borg 59.4
1987 AO Edberg 58.0

1989 AO Mecir 56.9
2017 UO Nadal 56.5
1982 WI Connors 52.5
1999 RG Agassi 50.3

8 wins in 11 finals here, instead.
Interesting that RG 1999, considered an epic title run by Agassi, was statistically the easiest.
 
Top