Losses to Eventual Champion at a Grand Slam - Big 4 and Sampras

[McEnroeisanartist]

Wondering what player has lost to the most eventual champions at a Grand Slam

Federer - 18 - 5 at Australian, 6 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Djokovic - 17 - 3 at Australian, 7 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 5 at US Open
Murray - 13 - 6 at Australian, 3 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 1 at US Open
Nadal - 7 - 2 at Australian, 0 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open

Sampras - 10 - 2 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Agassi - 12 - 0 at Australian Open, 4 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 6 at US Open
Connors - 15 - 1 at Australian Open, 0 at French Open, 6 at Wimbledon, 8 at US Open
Edberg - 11 - 5 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open
McEnroe - 11 - 2 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Becker - 8 - 0 At Australian, 1 at French Open, 7 at Wimbledon, 0 at US Open
Wilander - 6 - 1 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 1 at US Open
Borg - 7 - 0 at Australian Open, 1 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open

Note: Lendl - 23 - 4 at Australian, 5 at French Open, 5 at Wimbledon, 9 at US Open

Yes, Nadal's is very low.

Put another way:


Players who either won/lost to eventual champion at least 10 times at a Grand Slam:

Connors 13 at US Open, 5 wins, 8 losses
Lendl – 12 at US Open, 3 wins, 9 losses
Federer – 10 at Wimbledon, 7 wins, 3 losses
Becker – 10 at Wimbledon, 3 wins, 7 losses

 

[Murray Is A Pusher]

Lendl can now coach Murray towards that record.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Leave Sampras alone!

 

[Nonsense]

Wondering what player has lost to the most eventual champions at a Grand Slam

Federer - 18 - 5 at Australian, 6 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Djokovic - 17 - 3 at Australian, 7 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 5 at US Open
Murray - 13 - 6 at Australian, 3 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 1 at US Open
Nadal - 7 - 2 at Australian, 0 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open

Sampras - 10 - 2 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open

Note: Lendl - 23 - 4 at Australian, 5 at French Open, 5 at Wimbledon, 9 at US Open

And 6 of those Nadal losses have been in the finals...

So outside of finals, Nadal's only lost once to an eventual champion. Compare that to Sampras (5), Murray (5), Federer (8) and Djokovic (9)... that's just insane.

And ofcourse, Lendl leading everywhere at 12.

The guy who Nadal lost to is:

Spoiler

Delpo who won his only slam at the 2009 USO!

 

[NatF]

My count for Hewitt;

Lleyton Hewitt - 13 - 5 at Australian, 4 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

This type analysis shows clearly that if statistics is not handled correctly it can give you completely different picture.
How many people thinks that if Novak somehow won his match against eventual champion in AO 05 or 07 or in RG 07 was going to win championship, similarly Hewitt loss against RG winner is also not right and so is Rafa loss against Delpo as Fed would have defeated Rafa in finals.
This type of analysis is applicaple more to Sampras 98 Us open or 96 Wimbledon where if he had won his match against champion , he would have won championship or to Fed in AO 08,11 and 16

 

[Deleted member 743561]

This type analysis shows clearly that if statistics is not handled correctly it can give you completely different picture.
How many people thinks that if Novak somehow won his match against eventual champion in AO 05 or 07 or in RG 07 was going to win championship, similarly Hewitt loss against RG winner is also not right and so is Rafa loss against Delpo as Fed would have defeated Rafa in finals.
This type of analysis is applicaple to more to Sampras 98 Us open or 96 Wimbledon where if he had won his match against champion , he would have won championship or to Fed in AO 08,11 and 16

Very few of them in sports are presented (or interpreted) without spin or bias. On this board, you see it all the time. A particular fact or figure is spouted by someone with the intention of exalting a particular player. That's why in almost all cases, the numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. Except in the rare case of someone who statistically dominates categorically... the meaning is kind of distorted. In every case, they give a partial picture.

 

[Nonsense]

This type analysis shows clearly that if statistics is not handled correctly it can give you completely different picture.
How many people thinks that if Novak somehow won his match against eventual champion in AO 05 or 07 or in RG 07 was going to win championship, similarly Hewitt loss against RG winner is also not right and so is Rafa loss against Delpo as Fed would have defeated Rafa in finals.
This type of analysis is applicaple more to Sampras 98 Us open or 96 Wimbledon where if he had won his match against champion , he would have won championship or to Fed in AO 08,11 and 16

It's more likely that Fed would have found new and innovative ways to lose to Rafa. Not that he needed them.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

It's more likely that Fed would have found new and innovative ways to lose to Rafa. Not that he needed them.

Fed was quite in good form and Rafa was coming from injury, he lost to quite out of form Novak in Cincinnati , hell in form Rafa lost to Fed in wtf in 2010 in indoors.
See what Delpo did to Rafa and how Fed put Delpo in difficult situation before choking.

 

[Nonsense]

Fed was quite in good form and Rafa was coming from injury, he lost to quite out of form Novak in Cincinnati , hell in form Rafa lost to Fed in wtf in 2010 in indoors.
See what Delpo did to Rafa and how Fed put Delpo in difficult situation before choking.

That's what is great about the matchups. Not to mention Rafa also had the mental edge in every one of their matches especially after taking away Wimbledon and then beating Roger at AO that year. Also, USO is not indoors and Rafa always ALWAYS gets up for a Fed match. Even in his worst ever year he gave Fed a tough tough match in Basel last year.

And Rafa is like life in Jurassic Park.

Life finds a way.

 

[chacmool]

Yes, Nadal's is very low.

yes because the rosols of the world dont win that many slams

 

[90's Clay]

Id like to see what Federer's record is in deciding sets (3rd and 5th set) . Its gotta be the UGLIEST tennis record in history.

 

[abmk]

Id like to see what Federer's record is in deciding sets (3rd and 5th set) . Its gotta be the UGLIEST tennis record in history.

another clueless post from you.

fed's 3rd set record is perfectly fine - 65.4% ( 172-91 )

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/fedex-atp-win-loss

for comparison, sampras is at 68.1% (156-73)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/pete-sampras/s402/fedex-atp-win-loss

yes, federer's 5th set record is a bit less compared to the others, but its far from the worst -- and mainly stems from the fact that even if not playing that well, it'd take a player the distance to beat him in a 5-set match (especially in his prime years ) unlike nadal/sampras who'd get pumelled in straights or at max 4 when not playing that well

 

[abmk]

That's what is great about the matchups. Not to mention Rafa also had the mental edge in every one of their matches especially after taking away Wimbledon and then beating Roger at AO that year. Also, USO is not indoors and Rafa always ALWAYS gets up for a Fed match. Even in his worst ever year he gave Fed a tough tough match in Basel last year.

And Rafa is like life in Jurassic Park.

Life finds a way.

but nadal was getting back to form indoors even before the federer match last year ...
2009 USO - fed takes down nadal, no doubt ..

even after AO 09 that year, fed did beat him at madrid ( & of course other matches later on like YEC 10, YEC 11, IW 12 and basel 15 )

 

[boredone3456]

This stat is a tournament by tournament one in terms of how to interpret it. Take Sampras for example...he lost 3 times to the eventual champion at the French. If he had won any of those 3 matches would he have gone on to win the title? probably not.

Nadal, if you look at it, comes off looking bad overall because he lost quite a few times to relative nobodies at majors despite his high number of major wins.

Federer...who is obviously meant to be the beneficiary of this...well yes if Nadal wasn't around Federer probably would have won more. Its all depending on the person and the particular tournament.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

This stat is a tournament by tournament one in terms of how to interpret it. Take Sampras for example...he lost 3 times to the eventual champion at the French. If he had won any of those 3 matches would he have gone on to win the title? probably not.

Nadal, if you look at it, comes off looking bad overall because he lost quite a few times to relative nobodies at majors despite his high number of major wins.

Federer...who is obviously meant to be the beneficiary of this...well yes if Nadal wasn't around Federer probably would have won more. Its all depending on the person and the particular tournament.

I think 96 was a chance , because if he had managed to win semi , final was against stich S&v player not against typical baseliner

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Several other players:

Roddick - 10 - 1 at Australian Open, 0 at French Open, 5 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Courier - 8 - 2 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open
Chang 11 - 1 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 6 at US Open
Vilas - 8 - 1 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 3 at US Open
Kafelnikov - 10 - 4 at Australian Open, 4 at French Open, 0 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open
Ferrer - 7 - 3 at Australian Open, 4 at French Open, 0 at Wimbledon, 0 at US Open

 

[NatF]

Several other players:

Roddick - 10 - 1 at Australian Open, 0 at French Open, 5 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Courier - 8 - 2 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open
Chang 11 - 1 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 6 at US Open
Vilas - 8 - 1 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 3 at US Open
Kafelnikov - 10 - 4 at Australian Open, 4 at French Open, 0 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open
Ferrer - 7 - 3 at Australian Open, 4 at French Open, 0 at Wimbledon, 0 at US Open

Roddick was damn unlucky at Wimbledon and the USO.

 

[Nonsense]

but nadal was getting back to form indoors even before the federer match last year ...
2009 USO - fed takes down nadal, no doubt ..

even after AO 09 that year, fed did beat him at madrid ( & of course other matches later on like YEC 10, YEC 11, IW 12 and basel 15 )

YEC was indoors right? Nadal's not really all that good over there anyway and indoors really takes away some of the best aspects of Nadal's game. And Basel 15 really? That's like putting Fed losing in 2013 to someone as an argument

It's just sad that they managed to avoid each other by some really freak occurrences all of the years at the USO. Would have completed their quota at every slam.
2009: Nadal loses to red hot Delpo in SF
2010: Fed loses after having match points against Djokovic in the SF
2011: Fed loses again after having match point against Djokovic in the SF
2012: Nadal didn't even play.
2013: Fed's worst year. No way was he reaching the final.

I give Fed a good shot actually, about 40%. But Nadal lived rent free in his mind at that time...

 

[Nonsense]

another clueless post from you.

fed's 3rd set record is perfectly fine - 65.4% ( 172-91 )

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/roger-federer/f324/fedex-atp-win-loss

for comparison, sampras is at 68.1% (156-73)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/pete-sampras/s402/fedex-atp-win-loss

yes, federer's 5th set record is a bit less compared to the others, but its far from the worst -- and mainly stems from the fact that even if not playing that well, it'd take a player the distance to beat him in a 5-set match (especially in his prime years ) unlike nadal/sampras who'd get pumelled in straights or at max 4 when not playing that well

There may actually be a bit of truth to that about Nadal atleast. Looking at the records of the guys as @jm1980 provided here:

Borg: 27-6 (82%)
Djokovic: 27-8 (77%)
Laver: 30-10 (75%)
Nadal: 17-7 (71%)
Sampras: 33-15 (69%)
Becker: 32-15 (68%)
Wilander: 26-14 (65%)
Connors: 27-15 (64%)
McEnroe: 25-14 (64%)
Newcombe: 29-16 (64%)
Lendl: 35-22 (61%)
Edberg: 26-19 (58%)
Agassi: 27-21 (56%)
Federer: 23-19 (55%)

Nadal barely goes to 5 sets in comparison to many other guys in the list... his 24 is by far the lowest total among the ATG's. Sampras OTOH played a decent number of 5 setter and emerged victorious more often than not. Interestingly, Nadal's had two such "not playing well but still taken to 5 sets losses" in the past year to Fognini and Verdasco which have brought his %age down.

Some ridiculous numbers from the top 3 in that list though. Borg especially on another planet.

 

[Tyler-James]

Wondering what player has lost to the most eventual champions at a Grand Slam

Federer - 18 - 5 at Australian, 6 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Djokovic - 17 - 3 at Australian, 7 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 5 at US Open
Murray - 13 - 6 at Australian, 3 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 1 at US Open
Nadal - 7 - 2 at Australian, 0 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open

Sampras - 10 - 2 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Agassi - 12 - 0 at Australian Open, 4 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 6 at US Open
Connors - 15 - 1 at Australian Open, 0 at French Open, 6 at Wimbledon, 8 at US Open
Edberg - 11 - 5 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 2 at US Open
McEnroe - 11 - 2 at Australian Open, 2 at French Open, 3 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open
Becker - 8 - 0 At Australian, 1 at French Open, 7 at Wimbledon, 0 at US Open
Wilander - 6 - 1 at Australian Open, 3 at French Open, 1 at Wimbledon, 1 at US Open
Borg - 7 - 0 at Australian Open, 1 at French Open, 2 at Wimbledon, 4 at US Open

Note: Lendl - 23 - 4 at Australian, 5 at French Open, 5 at Wimbledon, 9 at US Open

Yes, Nadal's is very low.

Can you recalculate these stats to show what percentages of GS losses were to the eventual champion? I think that's more telling than raw numbers.

 

[Nonsense]

Can you recalculate these stats to show what percentages of GS losses were to the eventual champion? I think that's more telling than raw numbers.

Federer: 18/67 = 26.8%
Djokovic: 17/46 = 36.9%
Murray: 13/41 = 31.7%
Nadal: 7/45 = 15.5%
Sampras: 10/52 = 19.2%
Lendl: 23/57 = 40.3%

If we take out the grandslams that they won:
Federer: 18/50 = 36%
Djokovic: 17/34 = 50%
Murray: 13/39 = 33.3%
Nadal: 7/31 = 22.5%
Sampras: 10/38 = 26.3%
Lendl: 23/49 = 46.9%

Someone else can do the rest

 

[Tyler-James]

Federer: 18/67 = 26.8%
Djokovic: 17/46 = 36.9%
Murray: 13/41 = 31.7%
Nadal: 7/45 = 15.5%
Sampras: 10/52 = 19.2%
Lendl: 23/57 = 40.3%

If we take out the grandslams that they won:
Federer: 18/50 = 36%
Djokovic: 17/34 = 50%
Murray: 13/39 = 33.3%
Nadal: 7/31 = 22.5%
Sampras: 10/38 = 26.3%
Lendl: 23/49 = 46.9%

Someone else can do the rest

Thanks!

That's a pretty heady stat for Djoker. Unlucky?

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Great stats! Love this. I think with 5 set win % it is probably most important to look at record when up a set, up two sets, or up two sets to one. in other words, from a winning position. Otherwise, if a player is down and makes a fight, but loses in 5, they shouldn't be punished. That being said: Federer has lost so many "big mathes" in 5 sets from a winning position:

In just Grand Slams: 2002 Australian Open 4th Round, 2005 Australian Open semifinals, 2009 US Open finals, 2010 US Open semifinals, 2011 Wimbledon quarterfinals, 2011 US Open semifinals, 2014 French Open 4th Round (won 1st set), 2014 Wimbledon finals (won 1st set).

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Someone try telling me now that there is no such thing as the Rafa curse.

 

[serve]

Twisting statistics is fun, one could also argue that nadal being so low shows how much of a big match player he really was/is, since the eventuell winner usually is one of the greats, particulary in the last 10 or so years. No surprise that Sampras has a relatively low number as well. Both lack consistency for different reasons but were beasts when it came to the tail-end of a slam. Seeing it from that perspective, no wonder you find federer and djokovic at the top

 

[abmk]

YEC was indoors right? Nadal's not really all that good over there anyway and indoors really takes away some of the best aspects of Nadal's game. And Basel 15 really? That's like putting Fed losing in 2013 to someone as an argument

It's just sad that they managed to avoid each other by some really freak occurrences all of the years at the USO. Would have completed their quota at every slam.
2009: Nadal loses to red hot Delpo in SF
2010: Fed loses after having match points against Djokovic in the SF
2011: Fed loses again after having match point against Djokovic in the SF
2012: Nadal didn't even play.
2013: Fed's worst year. No way was he reaching the final.

I give Fed a good shot actually, about 40%. But Nadal lived rent free in his mind at that time...

unlike what many people tend to forget , nadal still needed to play very well to defeat federer, it wasn't a given.

federer did beat nadal in madrid 09 after that AO loss.

2009 USO, federer wins given their respective forms

 

[Nonsense]

Twisting statistics is fun, one could also argue that nadal being so low shows how much of a big match player he really was/is, since the eventuell winner usually is one of the greats, particulary in the last 10 or so years. No surprise that Sampras has a relatively low number as well. Both lack consistency for different reasons but were beasts when it came to the tail-end of a slam. Seeing it from that perspective, no wonder you find federer and djokovic at the top

Nadal accounts for these for Djoker:
1. 2006 RG
2. 2007 RG
3. 2008 RG
4. 2010 USO
5. 2012 RG
6. 2013 RG
7. 2013 USO
8. 2014 RG

So Djokovic has 9 other losses even after taking Nadal out.

Djokovic accounts for the following ones for Rafa: 2011 Wimbledon, 2011 USO, 2012 AO; Fed account for 2 of the other 4: Wimbledon 2006 and 2007.

If we do the same for Fed:
1. 2005 RG
2. 2006 RG
3. 2007 RG
4. 2008 Wim
5. 2008 RG
6. 2009 AO
7. 2011 RG

So Fed still has 10 other losses even after taking Nadal out.

Thus, even after taking Nadal out for both of them, they're still comparable to all of those other guys at 10-11 and are still above Nadal

 

[abmk]

There may actually be a bit of truth to that about Nadal atleast. Looking at the records of the guys as @jm1980 provided here:

Borg: 27-6 (82%)
Djokovic: 27-8 (77%)
Laver: 30-10 (75%)
Nadal: 17-7 (71%)
Sampras: 33-15 (69%)
Becker: 32-15 (68%)
Wilander: 26-14 (65%)
Connors: 27-15 (64%)
McEnroe: 25-14 (64%)
Newcombe: 29-16 (64%)
Lendl: 35-22 (61%)
Edberg: 26-19 (58%)
Agassi: 27-21 (56%)
Federer: 23-19 (55%)

Nadal barely goes to 5 sets in comparison to many other guys in the list... his 24 is by far the lowest total among the ATG's. Sampras OTOH played a decent number of 5 setter and emerged victorious more often than not. Interestingly, Nadal's had two such "not playing well but still taken to 5 sets losses" in the past year to Fognini and Verdasco which have brought his %age down.

Some ridiculous numbers from the top 3 in that list though. Borg especially on another planet.

part of sampras' 5-setters also stem from the matches in Grand Slam Cup SF&F, YEC finals, masters finals etc. which were Bo5, just saying ...
and yes, borg was arguably the best in a 5th set.

 

[xFedal]

Twisting statistics is fun, one could also argue that nadal being so low shows how much of a big match player he really was/is, since the eventuell winner usually is one of the greats, particulary in the last 10 or so years. No surprise that Sampras has a relatively low number as well. Both lack consistency for different reasons but were beasts when it came to the tail-end of a slam. Seeing it from that perspective, no wonder you find federer and djokovic at the top

If we look at these numbers, :
Federer: 18/67 = 26.8%
Djokovic: 17/46 = 36.9%
Murray: 13/41 = 31.7%
Nadal: 7/45 = 15.5%
Sampras: 10/52 = 19.2%
Lendl: 23/57 = 40.3%

If we take out the grandslams that they won:
Federer: 18/50 = 36%
Djokovic: 17/34 = 50%
Murray: 13/39 = 33.3%
Nadal: 7/31 = 22.5%
Sampras: 10/38 = 26.3%
Lendl: 23/49 = 46.9%

Someone else can do the rest

Novak doesn't lose to Journeymen, you got to respect him for having to suffer the least embarrassment, Fed hasn't suffered much embarrassment either, However Nadal has been humiliated on many a occupation by JourneyMen. Nadal has struggled so much against Journeymen even Murray is better against Journeymen.

 

[Nonsense]

unlike what many people tend to forget , nadal still needed to play very well to defeat federer, it wasn't a given.

federer did beat nadal in madrid 09 after that AO loss.

2009 USO, federer wins given their respective forms

The 4hr semifinal may have had an effect on that Madrid loss. If Nadal did have a huge 5-setter at 5 hours or something, yeah, I'll give Fed a better shot. But then, that didn't stop Nadal before in AO anyway.

I give Nadal a better chance simply for the matchup advantage he has. And beating Rafa in the end of a slam is entirely different to beating him in Masters. Djokovic knows that all too well...

 

[xFedal]

part of sampras' 5-setters also stem from the matches in Grand Slam Cup SF&F, YEC finals, masters finals etc. which were Bo5, just saying ...
and yes, borg was arguably the best in a 5th set.

Novak and Federer hardly ever get humiliated, ..... Nadal slayers like Rosol and Darcis, Verdasco, Brown, Krygios, Muller, etc.....

 

[xFedal]

part of sampras' 5-setters also stem from the matches in Grand Slam Cup SF&F, YEC finals, masters finals etc. which were Bo5, just saying ...
and yes, borg was arguably the best in a 5th set.

Borgs percentage is inflated I am sure it would have gone down had he played for 4 more years... I don't think his percentage would be as high as Novaks.

 

[abmk]

The 4hr semifinal may have had an effect on that Madrid loss. If Nadal did have a huge 5-setter at 5 hours or something, yeah, I'll give Fed a better shot. But then, that didn't stop Nadal before in AO anyway.

except nadal was playing close to his very best at the AO. he was nowhere near that at the USO ...

and the 4 hour match was more like a 3 hr match ( extra time due to time-wasting )...djokovic played a 3-setter vs murray in 2011 Rome SF , came out and pummeled nadal in the final ..

the main difference b/w fed-nadal in that madrid final was the important points. fed was 2/2 on BPs and nadal was 0/4.

I give Nadal a better chance simply for the matchup advantage he has. And beating Rafa in the end of a slam is entirely different to beating him in Masters. Djokovic knows that all too well...

delpo did it with ease in the SF..

murray handled him in the previous year's USO SF as well as well as in the next tournament's QF ( AO 10)

 

[Nonsense]

part of sampras' 5-setters also stem from the matches in Grand Slam Cup SF&F, YEC finals, masters finals etc. which were Bo5, just saying ...
and yes, borg was arguably the best in a 5th set.

Umm, if you do check the link... and I'm hoping you have... these were the major contributors to his 5 setters:

1. Australian Open - 11 times
2. USO - 11 times
3. Roland Garros - 9 times
4. Wimbledon 7 times

That itself accounts for 38 of his 48 5 setters.

Of the 10 left:
- 2 in Davis Cup
- 3 in Masters
- 2 Grand Slam Cup
- 1 at Olympics
- 1 Philadelphia Cup
- 1 Tour Finals

For Federer (of his 42):
1. Wimbledon 10 times
2. AO 10 times
2. USO 7 times
3. Roland Garros 7 times

That is 34 for him in comparison with 38 for Sampras in slams.

Others:
- 3 in Davis Cup
- 2 in Masters
- 1 at Basel
- 1 Gstaad
- 1 Tour Finals/Masters Cup

Including Davis Cup for both, that's 40 for Sampras in slams + DC, 37 for Fed.

 

[Nonsense]

except nadal was playing close to his very best at the AO. he was nowhere near that at the USO ...

and the 4 hour match was more like a 3 hr match ( extra time due to time-wasting )...djokovic played a 3-setter vs murray in 2011 Rome SF , came out and pummeled nadal in the final ..

the main difference b/w fed-nadal in that madrid final was the important points. fed was 2/2 on BPs and nadal was 0/4.



delpo did it with ease in the SF..

murray handled him in the previous year's USO SF as well as well as in the next tournament's QF ( AO 10)

And if we're looking at previous then Nadal reached the final in the next 3 editions he had (2010, 11 and 13). And won two of them.

I've seen it too many times before from the losing side and Nadal form throughout the tournament matters for naught when he gets to the final. In the final, he becomes crazy good.

 

[abmk]

^^

I just saw the #s, didn't click on the link. Fair enough ...

 

[abmk]

And if we're looking at previous then Nadal reached the final in the next 3 editions he had (2010, 11 and 13). And won two of them.

I've seen it too many times before from the losing side and Nadal form throughout the tournament matters for naught when he gets to the final. In the final, he becomes crazy good.

I disagree, atleast with respect to HC slams...look at his all his runs to HC finals

AO 09 : smashes haas, gonzales, takes out a tricky simon in straights, takes out verdasco in that titanic match

USO 10 : comes to the final without losing a set (even with a lousy draw, he was still playing very well )

USO 11 : smashes roddick in the QF(albeit a tired one), takes out murray comfortably in the semis in 4 sets

AO 12 : takes care of both berdych and federer playing well in 4 sets each

USO 13 : comes to the final without losing a set again ( even with a lousy draw, he was still playing very well )

---

nadal in USO 09 was far from his 2010/13 form or even 11 form ..

if you want to use the matchup/mental aspect for a potential 2011 USO match , I'd understand, but for 09, hell no ...

 

[xFedal]

I disagree, atleast with respect to HC slams...look at his all his runs to HC finals

AO 09 : smashes haas, gonzales, takes out a tricky simon in straights, takes out verdasco in that titanic match

USO 10 : comes to the final without losing a set (even with a lousy draw, he was still playing very well )

USO 11 : smashes roddick in the QF(albeit a tired one), takes out murray comfortably in the semis in 4 sets

AO 12 : takes care of both berdych and federer playing well in 4 sets each

USO 13 : comes to the final without losing a set again ( even with a lousy draw, he was still playing very well ), takes out tired Nole albeit a tired one...

---

nadal in USO 09 was far from his 2010/13 form or even 11 form ..

 

[Nonsense]

I disagree, atleast with respect to HC slams...look at his all his runs to HC finals

AO 09 : smashes haas, gonzales, takes out a tricky simon in straights, takes out verdasco in that titanic match

USO 10 : comes to the final without losing a set (even with a lousy draw, he was still playing very well )

USO 11 : smashes roddick in the QF(albeit a tired one), takes out murray comfortably in the semis in 4 sets

AO 12 : takes care of both berdych and federer playing well in 4 sets each

USO 13 : comes to the final without losing a set again ( even with a lousy draw, he was still playing very well )

---

nadal in USO 09 was far from his 2010/13 form or even 11 form ..

I think Fed would have been very twitchy and nervous if Nadal got there... he'd just stopped his 5W streak at Wimbledon the past year. Plus got his first hard court slam early in the year as well against Federer himself.

Nadal's very much a big game player... haven't quite seen one like him (Sampras seems that way by numbers but I didn't have the pleasure of watching him in his prime). The number of big losses he's inflicted on both Fed and Novak over the years... I'd put him a favorite against either of them in a slam final bar Novak at AO and Fed at Wimbly maybe.

 

[abmk]

^^ xFedal, didn't have much to do with tiredness ..had more to do with him trying to be too aggressive in the final after playing passive tennis for almost the whole year ...worked in sets 2 and 3 , but utterly failed in sets 1 & 4 ...

 

[abmk]

I think Fed would have been very twitchy and nervous if Nadal got there... he'd just stopped his 5W streak at Wimbledon the past year. Plus got his first hard court slam early in the year as well against Federer himself.

Nadal's very much a big game player... haven't quite seen one like him (Sampras seems that way by numbers but I didn't have the pleasure of watching him in his prime). The number of big losses he's inflicted on both Fed and Novak over the years... I'd put him a favorite against either of them in a slam final bar Novak at AO and Fed at Wimbly maybe.

I edited that post :

"if you want to use the matchup/mental aspect for a potential 2011 USO match , I'd understand, but for 09, hell no ..."

yeah, that first hard court slam that year, nadal was in much better form ...

there would be some nerves for fed seeing nadal across the court, but he;'d still have the confidence of having won RG+W and was still in clearly better form.

its ridiculous to just give potential matches to nadal when he's not playing anywhere near the level of the opponent - federer/djokovic. If he's close in level, yes, his mental toughness would come into the picture ..

 

[xFedal]

^^ didn't have much to do with tiredness ..had more to do with him trying to be too aggressive in the final after playing passive tennis for almost the whole year ...worked in sets 2 and 3 , but utterly failed in sets 1 & 4 ...

Novak was in his last legs vs Nadal in both 2010,2011,2013 Matches, he had 5 set semis in all. Novak had a brutual match with Wawrinka in the Semis he had to come back from 2 sets to 1 down, I knew then and there that he won't win it..

 

[Nonsense]

I edited that post :

"if you want to use the matchup/mental aspect for a potential 2011 USO match , I'd understand, but for 09, hell no ..."

yeah, that first hard court slam that year, nadal was in much better form ...

there would be some nerves for fed seeing nadal across the court, but he;'d still have the confidence of having won RG+W and was still in clearly better form.

its ridiculous to just give potential matches to nadal when he's not playing anywhere near the level of the opponent - federer/djokovic. If he's close in level, yes, his mental toughness would come into the picture ..

Oh no, I'm not giving him the match. I think he's the favorite though... and I know calling him the favorite over the 5 time defending champion sounds a bit stupid

 

[abmk]

Oh no, I'm not giving him the match. I think he's the favorite though... and I know calling him the favorite over the 5 time defending champion sounds a bit stupid

its not just calling him the favorite over the 5-time defending champion, but calling him favorite over the 5-time defending champion who was in much better form that is stupid

 

[Nonsense]

its not just calling him the favorite over the 5-time defending champion, but calling him favorite over the 5-time defending champion who was in much better form that is stupid

I really don't remember Nadal's form over that tournament but the results don't look that terrible. He lost 2 sets in the first 5 matches... same as Fed.

But yeah, arguing hypothetical scenarios really gets us nowhere. And I'm happy Delpo did beat Nadal and win his slam.

 

[abmk]

I really don't remember Nadal's form over that tournament but the results don't look that terrible. He lost 2 sets in the first 5 matches... same as Fed.

But yeah, arguing hypothetical scenarios really gets us nowhere. And I'm happy Delpo did beat Nadal and win his slam.

and 5 sets by the semi-final, only 2 for federer ( a straight-set win over djokovic )

he wasn't terrible, but he wasn't great either and he got swatted around by delpo in the semi-final ...

its good that delpo did get his slam at the USO (and not at RG earlier that year , heh ! ) ...but then I didn't think federer's USO performance would dip as badly as it did ( 10, 12 ,13 and 14 ) ..

 

[Nonsense]

and 5 sets by the semi-final, only 2 for federer ( a straight-set win over djokovic )

he wasn't terrible, but he got swatted around by delpo in the semi-final ...

its good that delpo did get his slam at the USO (and not at RG earlier that year , heh ! ) ...but then I didn't think federer's USO performance would dip as badly as it did ( 10, 12 13 and 14 ) ..

Rafa had a tendency to get swatted around like that... I still remember that Tsonga match from AO'08... or Gonzalez the year before in AO.

Federer did really dip badly at the USO... after 2009 he reached the next final in 2015... probably when no one was even expecting it.

 

[abmk]

Rafa had a tendency to get swatted around like that... I still remember that Tsonga match from AO'08... or Gonzalez the year before in AO.

yeah and in that kind of form, he's not beating a prime fed ...

Federer did really dip badly at the USO... after 2009 he reached the next final in 2015... probably when no one was even expecting it.

yeah, it was not good ..2015 came as a relief to be honest !

 

[serve]

Nadal accounts for these for Djoker:
1. 2006 RG
2. 2007 RG
3. 2008 RG
4. 2010 USO
5. 2012 RG
6. 2013 RG
7. 2013 USO
8. 2014 RG

So Djokovic has 9 other losses even after taking Nadal out.

Djokovic accounts for the following ones for Rafa: 2011 Wimbledon, 2011 USO, 2012 AO; Fed account for 2 of the other 4: Wimbledon 2006 and 2007.

If we do the same for Fed:
1. 2005 RG
2. 2006 RG
3. 2007 RG
4. 2008 Wim
5. 2008 RG
6. 2009 AO
7. 2011 RG

So Fed still has 10 other losses even after taking Nadal out.

Thus, even after taking Nadal out for both of them, they're still comparable to all of those other guys at 10-11 and are still above Nadal

My point was meant to be more general ... Nadal, Sampras, Becker, Borg are all low on the list, while Lendl, Djokovic, Murray, Federer are high ... and in which group do you find the better big match players?