Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Prisoner of Birth, Sep 16, 2012.
He seems to be, but I haven't done any research.
I don't think so, perhaps Rod Laver has?
He has, if you count pre-open era.
Yeah, Laver too. But just one of his runners-up is from the Open Era.
I had a quick look on Wikipedia, and Agassi and Courier have been runner ups at the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open, but neither lost an Australian Open final.
Narrows it down a bit I suppose.
Hey, who else is using a similar avatar to you? Confusing as I think the post is going to be sensible but then the sad reality kicks in.
Yeah, Tafmatch I think.
Tafmatch is the culprit. I'm not sure why he chose it to be honest, but I know it winds up NSK no end.
Still, there's always room for a little extra Hugh Laurie/Dr House on this site
I also double take whenever I see the avatar in a thread I've not yet replied in
Nadal cant just get the FO runner up, however hard he tries.
The only people in open era to be runner up at all the slams are Federer and Lendl so yes, but don't know about about pre-open era
Mustard is the man. He'll be able to tell us. :wink:
Another awesome Federer stat. He's the man.
You can add the YEC to that too.
Hahaha I was going to ask that eventually!
Should be house rules about that, yes House rules.
Lendl only missed winning wimbly
Ken Rosewall too
I think Laver also in the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Championship.
Laver was runnerup in the 1959 and 1960 Wimbledons. He was runnerup in the 1960 and 1961 US Championships. He was runnerup in the 1968 French Open. He was runnerup in the 1961 Australian.
You guys forgot Rod Laver. Lost 61 AO, 68 FO, 59 SW,60 US and plently other Slam final losses.
Laver also won Pro CYGS. and lost in all PRO CYGS finals....except Wimbledon Pro( Only held once in 67 for trial testing for Professional access to slams)
He has the No. 2 ranking numbers covered.. for eternity.
I was just going to list that Rafa has too when I realized the only Slam where he hasn't done it is the same one where he's won 7 times.
He has finalist plates from all the others, though - AO 2012, Wimbledon 2006 & 2007, and USO 2011.
I think the more impressive record is that Fed has made the final of each slam at least 5 times. Insanity.
Yeah, that's extremely impressive.
He's also the only player to win at least 50 matches in each of the 4 slam events, and won at least 10 titles on hard court, clay, grass, and indoor.
That's why I say he's the most complete player, most impressive/balanced resume of all time.
I guess the only things missing from Federer's resume is an Olympic gold, proper golden slam and proper grand slam.
At the Moscow Olympics, the gold medals had a picture of the Colosseum in Rome. A total joke. Someone obviously didn't know what the Acropolis or Parthenon look like.
And chariot racing has about as much relevance to the Olympics as Tennis.
Great, represent your country, that is the only medal tally that counts, but don't think it has anything to do with the real business of tennis.
It is just a side show. Interesting while it was on but pretty forgettable.
The "Career Golden Slam" is a nothing-term. It means no more than the "Career Super Slam (4 Slams+WTF)." The only things that matter are the "Career Grand Slam" and maybe also THE Grand Slam (winning all 4 in a row, doesn't matter if they're all in the same Calendar year or not).
ETA : Turns out I'm mistaken. The Career Super Slam also includes the Olympic gold for singles. It still means nothing, though. The WTF is as important as it would be, irrespective of the "Career Super Slam" stuff. It is no Slam, and nor is the Olympic Gold, which is even less so.
I'll bet you the guys who win it don't forget it!
Roger's already talking about trying for 2016. So he's not about to forget trying to win it anytime soon.
Federer reaching 5 AusOpen finals (winning four), 5 French Open finals (winning one), 8 Wimbledon finals (winning seven) and 6 US OPEN finals (winning five) is absolutely impressive.
No doubt he is the most accomplished tennis player in the Open Era.
I think everybody must agree on that.
But you can only play in your era, that is why nobody knows what any player would have won in other eras.
I personally think Lendl would have won more if he played in this homogeneous slow era, or Sampras would have won more if three of the four GS were played on grass ( as it was always, before 1975 ), or Nadal would have won much more if the US OPEN was on clay (even green clay) as it was in the middle of the 70s, or who knows how many GS would Pancho have won had he been able to play, etc.
But you can only play in your own era, and what Federer has achieved in his era is just something amazing.
Who wants to have the record of coming up short at all four slams? Doesn't seem like a record that Federer would want to have on his own. Rafa on the other hand made sure that he'll never get beaten in the final of Roland Garros (HIS turf), whereas Federer already let his Wimbledon final record slip in 2008. Being able to claim all the RU trophies is a loser's record.
Well I can guarantee you Rafa would have preferred a runner up trophy at the French Open in 2009 vs a forth round drubbing at the hands of Solderling
I'm happier that he lost in the 4th round, because it allowed him an extra week of rest and practice, and allowed him to regain the number 1 ranking at Roland Garros 2010. It also means he's 100% unbeaten in Roland Garros finals.
Yeap that extra week of practice really helped him wimby didn't it? :twisted:
Federer also has the runner-up medal in Olympics singles.
How arrogant of him to be both winner AND runner-up at all the Slams!
It sure did. Nadal then went on to become the first male player in world history to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court in a calendar year, and became the youngest winner of the career grand slam (and golden slam).
THE NEXT YEAR!! How did a loss in the 4th help him in wimby that year!
He had the opportunity to gain a huge 2000 points at Wimbledon in 2010 by missing it in 2009, enabling him to lock up the #1 ranking for a whole year.
Going by you're logic he should just skip the whole of next year and come back so he can gain points everywhere! But how did the 4th round loss help him you still haven't answered that!
I already told you. It gave him the message that he should withdraw from Wimbledon 2009 (amounting to almost a month's worth of rest) which undoubtedly helped him in 2010. And that isn't what I was saying, not playing a small amount of tournaments means he'll maintain a top ranking but not drop out of the rankings completely. That means next year he can be a highly ranked player AND make lots of gains.
I agree with you on the whole but still quarters semis and finals is better than a 4th round
By losing in the 4th round, he could make a greater gain in points at Roland Garros 2010. It also gives him slightly more rest.
True but if he had lost in the quarters it would've been a much more decent result while still allowing him to make up points
Why does it matter if he had made the QF? Nadal doesn't care for silly QF-streak records. To me, a 4R and a QF are almost equal.
QF is the last 8 people remaining!! Nadal doesn't care for QF streaks so he lost on purpose. That's just a plain excuse!! He doesn't care for it because he could not do it!! He lacks the consistency fed has no one loses on purpose because they think streaks do t matter
does the Silver count as a runner up trophy?
Depends on who you ask lol
Only 7 people have won the career Grand Slam, and Federer and Laver are the only players out of those 7 to win all 4 and lose all 4. Of course, before the open era began in April 1968, these 4 majors were for amateur players only. Laver turned professional after completing the 1962 Grand Slam, so couldn't play in the mainstream majors again until the open era started.
Won 2003 Wimbledon (beat Mark Philippoussis)
Won 2004 Australian Open (beat Marat Safin)
Won 2004 Wimbledon (beat Andy Roddick)
Won 2004 US Open (beat Lleyton Hewitt)
Won 2005 Wimbledon (beat Andy Roddick)
Won 2005 US Open (beat Andre Agassi)
Won 2006 Australian Open (beat Marcos Baghdatis)
Lost 2006 French Open (lost to Rafael Nadal)
Won 2006 Wimbledon (beat Rafael Nadal)
Won 2006 US Open (beat Andy Roddick)
Won 2007 Australian Open (beat Fernando Gonzalez)
Lost 2007 French Open (lost to Rafael Nadal)
Won 2007 Wimbledon (beat Rafael Nadal)
Won 2007 US Open (beat Novak Djokovic)
Lost 2008 French Open (lost to Rafael Nadal)
Lost 2008 Wimbledon (lost to Rafael Nadal)
Won 2008 US Open (beat Andy Murray)
Lost 2009 Australian Open (lost to Rafael Nadal)
Won 2009 French Open (beat Robin Soderling)
Won 2009 Wimbledon (beat Andy Roddick)
Lost 2009 US Open (lost to Juan Martin del Potro)
Won 2010 Australian Open (beat Andy Murray)
Lost 2011 French Open (lost to Rafael Nadal)
Won 2012 Wimbledon (beat Andy Murray)
Lost 1959 Wimbledon (lost to Alex Olmedo)
Won 1960 Australian Championships (beat Neale Fraser)
Lost 1960 Wimbledon (lost to Neale Fraser)
Lost 1960 US Championships (lost to Neale Fraser)
Lost 1961 Australian Championships (lost to Roy Emerson)
Won 1961 Wimbledon (beat Chuck McKinley)
Lost 1961 US Championships (lost to Roy Emerson)
Won 1962 Australian Championships (beat Roy Emerson)
Won 1962 French Championships (beat Roy Emerson)
Won 1962 Wimbledon (beat Marty Mulligan)
Won 1962 US Championships (beat Roy Emerson)
Lost 1968 French Open (lost to Ken Rosewall)
Won 1968 Wimbledon (beat Tony Roche)
Won 1969 Australian Open (beat Andres Gimeno)
Won 1969 French Open (beat Ken Rosewall)
Won 1969 Wimbledon (beat John Newcombe)
Won 1969 US Open (beat Tony Roche)
Of the other 5 men, Rafael Nadal has never been runner-up of the French Open, Andre Agassi was never runner-up of the Australian Open, Roy Emerson was never runner-up of Wimbledon, Don Budge was never runner-up of the Australian, French or Wimbledon, and Fred Perry was never runner-up of Wimbledon or the US.
Separate names with a comma.