Most All Time Greats - Defeated at One Grand Slam - Has Anyone Come Close to Nadal at French Open?

[McEnroeisanartist]

All Time Greats - Defined as 6 or More Career Grand Slams in Open Era (Not necessarily at time of match)

Nadal - 13 - French Open - (Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic
Lendl - 13 US Open - (Wilander, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Agassi, Agassi, Connors, Becker)
McEnroe - 8 - US Open - (Connors, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Edberg, Connors, Lendl, Wilander)
Connors - 8 - US Open - (Borg, Borg, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Lendl, Edberg, Edberg)
Sampras - 7 - US Open - (Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi)
Wilander - 7 - French Open - Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Agassi)
Agassi - 6 - US Open - (Connors, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Becker, Federer)
Djokovic - 6 - Australian Open (Federer, Federer, Nadal, Federer, Nadal, Federer)
Becker - 5 - Wimbledon - (Lendl, Lendl, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi)
Edberg - 5 - Australian Open - Lendl, Wilander, Wilander, Lendl, Sampras)
Borg - 5 - Wimbledon - Connors, Connors, Connors, McEnroe, Connors
Federer - 5 - Wimbledon - Sampras, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic, Nadal

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

funny how Djokerer score so low
Lendl is epic

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic has 5 at Wimbledon as well.

 

[BlueB]

Lendl is the most impressive, though. He defeated 7 DIFFERENT ATGs at USO.

 

[topher]

How about at all slams added up? Rafa has 13+3+2+3 by my count: 21.

Wimbledon: Agassi, Djokovic, Federer
Australia: Federer, Federer, Federer
US: Djokovic, Djokovic

Weird he has 1 more at Wimbledon and AO than the USO, but has won 4 times at USO, more than the other two combined.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic has 5 at Wimbledon as well.

Federer too has 5 at the USO. 2 points from 7.

 

[DSH]

Federer too has 5 at the USO. 2 points from 7.

 

[JaoSousa]

Even though this measure doesn't consider form: 2006 Djokovic for example, it just shows how dominant Nadal has been at Roland Garros. Ombeliebabel

 

[Lew II]

LOL at putting beating Big3 in the same category of Wilander and Edberg.

And you're not counting Rosewall and Laver I think. Connors for example beat Rosewall at the USO.

 

[JaoSousa]

LOL at putting beating Big3 on the same level of Wilander.

Says the person who never watched him play.

 

[Lew II]

Says the person who never watched him play.

So beating 20 slam winners is the same as beating 6 slam winners?

Wilander, Becker, Edberg are much closer to Murray than they are to Big3.

 

[Druss]

Lendl-McEnroe-Connors up there...just shows how epic the 80s were. I can't see how Lendl of the 80s won't be collecting slam after slam had he replaced Djokovic...especially post 2014.

 

[Lew II]

Nadal - 13 - French Open - (Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic
Lendl - 13 US Open - (Wilander, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Agassi, Agassi, Connors, Becker)

Slams won by ATGs beaten by Nadal at RG --> 249
Slams won by ATGs beaten by Lendl at UO --> 94

 

[Lew II]

Lendl-McEnroe-Connors up there...just shows how epic the 80s were. I can't see how Lendl of the 80s won't be collecting slam after slam had he replaced Djokovic...especially post 2014.

Slam matches against 10+ slam winners:

Djokovic 33
Lendl 3

 

[King No1e]

All Time Greats - Defined as 6 or More Career Grand Slams in Open Era (Not necessarily at time of match)

Nadal - 13 - French Open - (Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic
Lendl - 13 US Open - (Wilander, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Agassi, Agassi, Connors, Becker)
McEnroe - 8 - US Open - (Connors, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Edberg, Connors, Lendl, Wilander)
Connors - 8 - US Open - (Borg, Borg, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Lendl, Edberg, Edberg)
Sampras - 7 - US Open - (Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi)
Wilander - 7 - French Open - Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Agassi)
Agassi - 6 - US Open - (Connors, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Becker, Federer)
Djokovic - 6 - Australian Open (Federer, Federer, Nadal, Federer, Nadal, Federer)
Becker - 5 - Wimbledon - (Lendl, Lendl, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi)
Edberg - 5 - Australian Open - Lendl, Wilander, Wilander, Lendl, Sampras)
Borg - 5 - Wimbledon - Connors, Connors, Connors, McEnroe, Connors
Federer - 5 - Wimbledon - Sampras, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic, Nadal

Fed has 5 ATG wins at USO too, 2 vs Agassi and 3 vs Djokovic

 

[aditya123]

Lendl-McEnroe-Connors up there...just shows how epic the 80s were. I can't see how Lendl of the 80s won't be collecting slam after slam had he replaced Djokovic...especially post 2014.

Lendl>>> Djokovic confirmed.

 

[mahesh69a]

What are the counts at all slams put together? That stat surely matters more than domination at a single tournament.

 

[Druss]

Slam matches against 10+ slam winners:

Djokovic 33
Lendl 3

LOL ok...confirmed, Borg and Lendl were mugs.

 

[Druss]

Lendl>>> Djokovic confirmed.

Nah, I wouldn't go as far as saying Lendl far greater than Djoko. What I'm saying is by swapping both of them, I think they would have achieved fairly similar results. Just can't see Djoker winning more than 9 slams during the 80s, likewise Lendl in 2011-2021 he'd be on at least 15 slams.

 

[Thetouch]

These stats don't show the whole picture though. Beating Djokovic in 2006 (zero Slams) is not the same as beating him in 2015/16 when he won 4 in a row. And beating Lendl in 1981 is obviously not comparable to beating him 1987.

 

[DSH]

All Time Greats - Defined as 6 or More Career Grand Slams in Open Era (Not necessarily at time of match)

Nadal - 13 - French Open - (Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Federer, Djokovic
Lendl - 13 US Open - (Wilander, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Agassi, Agassi, Connors, Becker)
McEnroe - 8 - US Open - (Connors, Lendl, Connors, Borg, Edberg, Connors, Lendl, Wilander)
Connors - 8 - US Open - (Borg, Borg, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Lendl, Edberg, Edberg)
Sampras - 7 - US Open - (Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi)
Wilander - 7 - French Open - Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Agassi)
Agassi - 6 - US Open - (Connors, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Becker, Federer)
Djokovic - 6 - Australian Open (Federer, Federer, Nadal, Federer, Nadal, Federer)
Becker - 5 - Wimbledon - (Lendl, Lendl, Lendl, Edberg, Agassi)
Edberg - 5 - Australian Open - Lendl, Wilander, Wilander, Lendl, Sampras)
Borg - 5 - Wimbledon - Connors, Connors, Connors, McEnroe, Connors
Federer - 5 - Wimbledon - Sampras, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic, Nadal

14.

 

[Sport]

Lendl is the most impressive, though. He defeated 7 DIFFERENT ATGs at USO. First, cause McEnroe

Your logic and objectivity toward Nadal are impeccable. Now 7 wins against ATGs are more impressive than 14 wins against ATGs, right? 14 is twice as much as 7, but let's forget about that fact.

Also, what if they're different? If you combine Wilander, Agassi and McEnroe, they have less Slams than Novak. 3 of them together have less Slams than 1 of the Big 3. Needless to say, each of the opponents Lendl faced are worse players than the Big 3.

Meaning, no. 14 > 7. Nadal's ATGs wins at RG are far more impressive than Lendl's at the USO both in terms of quantity and quality.

Or maybe you're right. Lendl at the USO is more dominant and impressive against his opposition than Nadal at RG. Lendl's 3 USO titles are far more impressive and show a higher degree of dominance of other ATGs than 14 RG.

 

[thrust]

How about at all slams added up? Rafa has 13+3+2+3 by my count: 21.

Wimbledon: Agassi, Djokovic, Federer
Australia: Federer, Federer, Federer
US: Djokovic, Djokovic

Weird he has 1 more at Wimbledon and AO than the USO, but has won 4 times at USO, more than the other two combined.

OFFICIALLY, like it or not, Novak Djokovic has won 24 slams, Rafa-22, Federer-20, Sampras-14, Borg-11, Connors-Lendl-Agassi-8. DEAL WITH IT!

 

[SonnyT]

The last time Nadal defeated Federer, he wasn't going to win anyway. And Nadal got rewarded with 20 full points.

Agassi got credit for losing to Federer.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Your logic and objectivity toward Nadal are impeccable. Now 7 wins against ATGs are more impressive than 14 wins against ATGs, right? 14 is twice as much as 7, but let's forget about that fact.

Also, what if they're different? If you combine Wilander, Agassi and McEnroe, they have less Slams than Novak. 3 of them together have less Slams than 1 of the Big 3. Needless to say, each of the opponents Lendl faced are worse players than the Big 3.

Meaning, no. 14 > 7. Nadal's ATGs wins at RG are far more impressive than Lendl's at the USO both in terms of quantity and quality.

Or maybe you're right. Lendl at the USO is more dominant and impressive against his opposition than Nadal at RG. Lendl's 3 USO titles are far more impressive and show a higher degree of dominance of other ATGs than 14 RG.

It is not meant 7 wins against ATGs but 13 wins against 7 different ATGs (I only count 6 though, Mac, Connors, Mats, Edberg, Agassi, Becker). Nadal exclusively beat Djoko and Fed, who while of course GOAT candidates both have clay at their weakest surface whereas Lendl beat the likes of Connors and Mac whose best slam were the USO. Edberg, Becker, Mats and Agassi are also no slouches here, even though of course not all those wins came against prime versions. Anywho, one can make a perfect case for Lendl’s feat being more impressive as an isolated achievement, of course nobody would be delusional enough to say Lendl at USO > Nadal at FO.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Your logic and objectivity toward Nadal are impeccable. Now 7 wins against ATGs are more impressive than 14 wins against ATGs, right? 14 is twice as much as 7, but let's forget about that fact.

Also, what if they're different? If you combine Wilander, Agassi and McEnroe, they have less Slams than Novak. 3 of them together have less Slams than 1 of the Big 3. Needless to say, each of the opponents Lendl faced are worse players than the Big 3.

Meaning, no. 14 > 7. Nadal's ATGs wins at RG are far more impressive than Lendl's at the USO both in terms of quantity and quality.

Or maybe you're right. Lendl at the USO is more dominant and impressive against his opposition than Nadal at RG. Lendl's 3 USO titles are far more impressive and show a higher degree of dominance of other ATGs than 14 RG.

The 80s were a time of surface differentiation and players of incredible talent close in age competing at the same time.

Borg - McEnroe - Lendl - Wilander - Edberg - Becker were all playing and competing within an 11 year span. Nobody is winning 20+ slams in that era, especially with specialized surfaces. Not even big 3, all of whom benefited from weak eras and surface homogenization. It’s not as simple as saying 20+ > 6+, therefore beating Federer is 3x as impressive as beating Edberg.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Nadal on clay in general, and specifically at RG is more than just tennis GOATery, it is a sports legend akin to the great of all sports. It is a clear separation with Lendl and Nadal demonstrating excellence, bar none.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Lendl is the most impressive, though. He defeated 7 DIFFERENT ATGs at USO.

Nobody loved Lendl more than me, but he was also 3-5 in USO finals, losing two straight to old Connors. Ivan was prohibitively favored in both those finals, but choked them away. There's also no excuse for him to have lost the 1988 USO final to Mats, who bizarrely (and effectively) served and volleyed the entire match, stunning Lendl with this tactic.

 

[SonnyT]

All Time Greats - Defined as 6 or More Career Grand Slams in Open Era (Not necessarily at time of match)
Sampras - 7 - US Open - (Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi, Agassi)
Agassi - 6 - US Open - (Connors, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Becker, Federer)

Agassi won only 2 UO (94, 99) and he didn't defeat any of the players mentioned. His list of victims were, let's say, way below average.

Lendl and McEnroe were previous champions, and weren't of Sampras' generation. Wilander was an early bloomer, and wilted earlier.