Most finals' opponents ranked in the top-10.

[Pheasant]

I wanted to take a look at Tennis Abstract to see which players of the Open Era 7-slam titles club had the most wins vs top-10 players in finals.

Novak Djokovic	68-34
Roger Federer	58-40
Rafael Nadal	51-32
Ivan Lendl	47-42
Bjorn Borg	43-20
John McEnroe	40-26
Jimmy Connors	35-30
Pete Sampras	33-15
Andre Agassi	23-19
Mats Wilander	13-15

Note: Andy Murray clearly got robbed. He's 21-21 in finals vs top-10 players. 31 of those matches were against the Big 3. And he went 14-17 vs the Big 3 in those finals. And the Big 3 were ranked in the top-3 in all but 1 of those finals(Nadal was ranked 4th in the 2015 Madrid final).

 

[Rosstour]

I thought Federer was the worst of the "great" players against decent opponents?

 

[itrium84]

Big3 dominating historical records, no surprise there.
Yeah, Murray is basically ATG in everything except slam count.

 

[itrium84]

I thought Federer was the worst of the "great" players against decent opponents?

You thought wrong.

 

[Rosstour]

You thought wrong.

I didn't actually think that. I was satirizing the ridiculous narrative that Fed is the impostor among the B3

 

[The Guru]

That narrative is obviously stupid but he does have the worst win percentage among the tier 1 greats (Pete/Borg/Big 3)

 

[Neptune]

Novak Djokovic​	68-34​	102​	66.67%​
Roger Federer​	58-40​	98​	59.18%​
Rafael Nadal​	51-32​	83​	61.45%​
Ivan Lendl​	47-42​	89​	52.81%​
Bjorn Borg​	43-20​	63​	68.25%​
John McEnroe​	40-26​	66​	60.61%​
Jimmy Connors​	35-30​	65​	53.85%​
Pete Sampras​	33-15​	48​	68.75%​
Andre Agassi​	23-19​	42​	54.76%​
Mats Wilander​	13-15​	28​	46.43%​

Great job, OP. Don't worry if some propagandists label you as a 'wiki warrior', haha.
I've included totals and percentages for you to update OP if you like.

 

[nolefam_2024]

We wouldn't even need top 10 wins in finals
Or % of top 10 wins in finals
Anymore

Just check the flat out numbers

Fed is at 103 titles and countless finals
Djokovic is at 98 and ongoing

Nadal likely will retire at 92. Case closed.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I wanted to take a look at Tennis Abstract to see which players of the Open Era 7-slam titles club had the most wins vs top-10 players in finals.

Novak Djokovic	68-34
Roger Federer	58-40
Rafael Nadal	51-32
Ivan Lendl	47-42
Bjorn Borg	43-20
John McEnroe	40-26
Jimmy Connors	35-30
Pete Sampras	33-15
Andre Agassi	23-19
Mats Wilander	13-15

Note: Andy Murray clearly got robbed. He's 21-21 in finals vs top-10 players. 31 of those matches were against the Big 3. And he went 14-17 vs the Big 3 in those finals. And the Big 3 were ranked in the top-3 in all but 1 of those finals(Nadal was ranked 4th in the 2015 Madrid final).

I am sorry but I don't get this. What type of finals are we talking ? In general or just big titles finals?

 

[Neptune]

I am sorry but I don't get this. What type of finals are we talking ? In general or just big titles finals?

I believe OP is looking at all finals when final opponent is a top10, correct? @Pheasant

 

[nolefam_2024]

I believe OP is looking at all finals when final opponent is a top10, correct? @Pheasant

Then Federer had 103 titles and only 53 top 10 in final
Nadal 92 titles and 51 top win in final

Both are far behind Djokovic in top 10 finals but at least Nadal has more chance to face a top 10 player in final than fed. Fed also has high number of Stuttgart Halle titles where he barely ever faced a top 10, be it in finals or non finals.

 

[Razer]

I thought Federer was the worst of the "great" players against decent opponents?

Roger is 8th on win% among guys who faced a minimum 20 top 10 ranked opponents in the final.

 

[Pheasant]

I believe OP is looking at all finals when final opponent is a top10, correct? @Pheasant

Yes, that is correct. The opponents were ranked in the top-10 while playing those finals against the ATG players listed. And of course, the winning percentages fell as the players aged.

 

[Razer]

@Pheasant - Why to filter top 10 opponents in finals ?

IMO Finals are Finals, if we wanna see performance in finals then it should be whole, there is no need to filter Top 10 or top 5

And if we wanna see Top 10 then just see Win% vs Top 10 overall, all rounds combined.

 

[Razer]

Overall Win% in Finals (not just top 10, everyone inclued) are as follows (Min 70 finals played)

Rank	Country	Name	Overall Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	AUS	Rod Laver	72.73%	72	27	99
1	USA	Pete Sampras	72.73%	64	24	88
3	SWE	Bjorn Borg	71.74%	66	26	92
4	USA	John McEnroe	71.03%	76	31	107
5	SRB	Novak Djokovic	70.80%	97	40	137
6	ESP	Rafael Nadal	70.77%	92	38	130
7	USA	Jimmy Connors	68.55%	109	50	159
8	USA	Andre Agassi	66.29%	59	30	89
9	SUI	Roger Federer	66.03%	103	53	156
10	USA	Ivan Lendl	64.79%	92	50	142

 

[Neptune]

Then Federer had 103 titles and only 53 top 10 in final
Nadal 92 titles and 51 top win in final

Both are far behind Djokovic in top 10 finals but at least Nadal has more chance to face a top 10 player in final than fed. Fed also has high number of Stuttgart Halle titles where he barely ever faced a top 10, be it in finals or non finals.

Stats of Big3 in finals against non-top10.
Novak Djokovic 30-6 36 83.33%
Roger Federer 45-13 58 77.59%
Rafael Nadal 41-7 48 85.42%

 

[Pheasant]

@Pheasant - Why to filter top 10 opponents in finals ?

IMO Finals are Finals, if we wanna see performance in finals then it should be whole, there is no need to filter Top 10 or top 5

And if we wanna see Top 10 then just see Win% vs Top 10 overall, all rounds combined.

It was a different stat that I wanted to run. I've seen the top-10 records before. But I hadn't seen this one before. It was inspired by the thread that asked if Medvedev would end up above .500 in finals matches. When I saw that, I looked at his opponents and saw that he faced a lot of very tough opponents.

But you are correct. Facing top-10 in all rounds yields a bigger sample size and a more accurate picture.

 

[Pheasant]

Overall Win% in Finals (not just top 10, everyone inclued) are as follows (Min 70 finals played)

Rank	Country	Name	Overall Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	AUS	Rod Laver	72.73%	72	27	99
1	USA	Pete Sampras	72.73%	64	24	88
3	SWE	Bjorn Borg	71.74%	66	26	92
4	USA	John McEnroe	71.03%	76	31	107
5	SRB	Novak Djokovic	70.80%	97	40	137
6	ESP	Rafael Nadal	70.77%	92	38	130
7	USA	Jimmy Connors	68.55%	109	50	159
8	USA	Andre Agassi	66.29%	59	30	89
9	SUI	Roger Federer	66.03%	103	53	156
10	USA	Ivan Lendl	64.79%	92	50	142

Wow. And I'm assuming that only includes Open Era records. If that's correct, then that means Laver's seasons through 1967 are excluded, which means we excluded all seasons through his age-30 season. That's pretty impressive, considering that nobody from his era makes the list.

 

[Razer]

It was a different stat that I wanted to run. I've seen the top-10 records before. But I hadn't seen this one before. It was inspired by the thread that asked if Medvedev would end up above .500 in finals matches. When I saw that, I looked at his opponents and saw that he faced a lot of very tough opponents.

But you are correct. Facing top-10 in all rounds yields a bigger sample size and a more accurate picture.

Facing Top 10 Overall in all rounds makes it look like this - You can see Alcaraz and some guys who are playing now have crept up in these ratings .... Stefan Edberg has been pushed to 24th position due to no minimum limit on the matches.

Win% vs TOP 10

Wow. And I'm assuming that only includes Open Era records. If that's correct, then that means Laver's seasons through 1967 are excluded, which means we excluded all seasons through his age-30 season. That's pretty impressive, considering that nobody from his era makes the list.

Yes, these numbers are only open era records, so Laver's number before 1968 are all gone.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Stats of Big3 in finals against non-top10.
Novak Djokovic 30-6 36 83.33%
Roger Federer 45-13 58 77.59%
Rafael Nadal 41-7 48 85.42%

Rafa loves to crush those players he plays in South American clay like cuevas as well.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, Murray is basically ATG in everything except slam count.

But if Stan could win 3 slams, surely Murray should've won more.

 

[nolefam_2024]

But if Stan could win 3 slams, surely Murray should've won more.

I think he was not capable of it.

 

[Tennfan123]

Please not with the Murray but big 3 excuse.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Please not with the Murray but big 3 excuse.

No excuses Murray failed.

 

[RS]

Murray a ATG confirmed.

 

[SonnyT]

Pete Sampras had it easy. He had 48 T10 matches, and 14 slams. Borg had 63 T10 matches, and just 11 slams. Federer had 98 T10 matches, and 20 slams.

I was under the impression that Table 1 shows the records of T10 during the slam totals. For example, Djokovic has played 102 T10 matches during 63 slams that he took part in. 102/63=1.62, so it's less than 2 per slam tournament. That's too low, that can't be right!

 

[itrium84]

But if Stan could win 3 slams, surely Murray should've won more.

Yeah, 11 finals, 10 of those against GOATs.
Also, 10 SF losses, 8 of those to big3.

 

[GabeT]

I didn't actually think that. I was satirizing the ridiculous narrative that Fed is the impostor among the B3

What has he won lately?

 

[Mainad]

Please not with the Murray but big 3 excuse.

But it's a good excuse.

 

[Terenigma]

But if Stan could win 3 slams, surely Murray should've won more.

Stan could still only manage 1 masters title, no Olympic single gold, no WTF, didn't make it to number 1 and only won 1/3 of the titles Murray won amongst a sea of early slam losses for 3/4 of his career. Him winning 3 slams (and only making 1 other final) is the anomaly in an otherwise mostly forgettable career that slamless wise, would be shared by a good chunk of the tour.

It's a shame Murray didn't win more slams because that seems like the only metric most remember and that he was unfortunately on the other side of the net against 2 of the greatest players to ever play the sport in 10 of his 11 finals and the only time he wasn't, he won in straight sets. He's still an ATG and the true tennis fans and even a handful of former players and commentators, say as much.

 

[junior74]

I didn't actually think that. I was satirizing the ridiculous narrative that Fed is the impostor among the B3

According to Spencer, Federer was very lucky to be born 5-6 years ahead of the other two. If born alongside them, a very real chance of zero slams

 

[fedfan24]

I think this stat shows that Federer and Djokovic are in a league of their own in terms of consistency, but Federer blew quite a few winnable finals which hurts this stat. Of course you can say he’s been unlucky with his competition but the numbers stay the same regardless.

Rome 06
W08, 14, 19
Canada 07, 10, 14
Monte Carlo 06, 08, 14
Hamburg 08
Shanghai 10
YEC 12
USO 09, 15
IW 14, 15, 18, 19

Incredible how he didn’t manage to win any of these events.

Plus he didn’t win many where he could’ve lost too. Maybe Wimbledon 07, 09 final, can’t think of many others. Miami 05 was fortunate.

 

[RS]

According to Spencer, Federer was very lucky to be born 5-6 years ahead of the other two. If born alongside them, a very real chance of zero slams

Why not 40 slams?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Luck or choice all depends on the belief. Federer is super dominant but has major issues in close matches in fifth set finals. 2008/09/09/11(4 sets)/14/19

Won just 2 fifth set final in this time period. AO 17/18, both should probably not even have gone fifth.

While someone like Nadal, despite having huge physical issues in later years closed out matches in the fifth in the final. Even in 2022, during RG, despite Zverev playing well, Nadal won first set and was probably going to win another set.

There is total conviction in playing safe and grinding out and having confidence that they can grind out in Nadal and Djokovic. Federer never had the mentality. Against the best players in the final, it does matter.

Like Alcaraz hanging on and grinding out vs Djokovic in Wimbledon. He got washed in set 1 but came back to win in fifth. That's some quality.

 

[fedfan24]

Luck or choice all depends on the belief. Federer is super dominant but has major issues in close matches in fifth set finals. 2008/09/09/11(4 sets)/14/19

Won just 2 fifth set final in this time period. AO 17/18, both should probably not even have gone fifth.

While someone like Nadal, despite having huge physical issues in later years closed out matches in the fifth in the final. Even in 2022, during RG, despite Zverev playing well, Nadal won first set and was probably going to win another set.

There is total conviction in playing safe and grinding out and having confidence that they can grind out in Nadal and Djokovic. Federer never had the mentality. Against the best players in the final, it does matter.

Like Alcaraz hanging on and grinding out vs Djokovic in Wimbledon. He got washed in set 1 but came back to win in fifth. That's some quality.

Good point to be fair this has haunted Federer even in his peak years. It’s a crime how he lost 2005 Australian open and 2006 Rome the way he was playing and the leads he had.

Best front runner ever at his best imo but not quite as clutch if he has to dig deep. It’s a shame he didn’t have his 2017 mentality in the 2000s, otherwise he’d have won 23-24 slams.

 

[Kralingen]

PETE.

 

[junior74]

Why not 40 slams?

Ask Spencer!

 

[SonnyT]

Good point to be fair this has haunted Federer even in his peak years. It’s a crime how he lost 2005 Australian open and 2006 Rome the way he was playing and the leads he had.

Best front runner ever at his best imo but not quite as clutch if he has to dig deep. It’s a shame he didn’t have his 2017 mentality in the 2000s, otherwise he’d have won 23-24 slams.

In 2017-18, Federer had all his rivals, except Djokovic who had an injured elbow. In another thread, it was pointed out that, starting in '14 Federer with the new racquet and backhand vanquished virtually every rival, except Djokovic.

By '18 WB, Djokovic had the elbow fixed.

 

[mike danny]

Stan could still only manage 1 masters title, no Olympic single gold, no WTF, didn't make it to number 1 and only won 1/3 of the titles Murray won amongst a sea of early slam losses for 3/4 of his career. Him winning 3 slams (and only making 1 other final) is the anomaly in an otherwise mostly forgettable career that slamless wise, would be shared by a good chunk of the tour.

It's a shame Murray didn't win more slams because that seems like the only metric most remember and that he was unfortunately on the other side of the net against 2 of the greatest players to ever play the sport in 10 of his 11 finals and the only time he wasn't, he won in straight sets. He's still an ATG and the true tennis fans and even a handful of former players and commentators, say as much.

But if Stan, a much worse player than Murray, could win as many slams as Andy, then surely the better player in Murray should've won more.

 

[Mainad]

But if Stan, a much worse player than Murray, could win as many slams as Andy, then surely the better player in Murray should've won more.

Yes, maybe he should but he didn't. That's on him.

I recall him being interviewed after his maiden Slam win (at 2012 US Open) and being asked the stupid question "How many Slams do you think you will win?" He should have replied something like "Oh I don't know, hopefully as many as I can". Instead he actually said with a shrug "Maybe 2 or 3" and I face-palmed then and hoped he hadn't just jinxed himself. Seems my hope was in vain!

 

[Neptune]

Yes, maybe he should but he didn't. That's on him.

I recall him being interviewed after his maiden Slam win (at 2012 US Open) and being asked the stupid question "How many Slams do you think you will win?" He should have replied something like "Oh I don't know, hopefully as many as I can". Instead he actually said with a shrug "Maybe 2 or 3" and I face-palmed then and hoped he hadn't just jinxed himself. Seems my hope was in vain!

Murray must be fully aware of the brutal competition back then, and he's quite candid about it in his response.
TBH, it wouldn't be surprising if Wawrinka ends up slamless in the worst-case scenario, while Murray could easily achieve 5+ in a favorable scenario.

 

[fedfan24]

In 2017-18, Federer had all his rivals, except Djokovic who had an injured elbow. In another thread, it was pointed out that, starting in '14 Federer with the new racquet and backhand vanquished virtually every rival, except Djokovic.

By '18 WB, Djokovic had the elbow fixed.

Federer was definitely better overall in 2017 than 2014.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray must be fully aware of the brutal competition back then, and he's quite candid about it in his response.
TBH, it wouldn't be surprising if Wawrinka ends up slamless in the worst-case scenario, while Murray could easily achieve 5+ in a favorable scenario.

Yep

 

[urban]

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, Rod Laver is Nr. 1 in open era in number of wins over top ten opponents in a given year:

1. Laver 35 in 1969.
2. Djokovic 31 in 2015,
3. Laver 28 in 1968.
4. McEnroe 26 in 1984,
5. Laver 24 in 1970 and 1971.
Djokovic 24 in 2012 and 2013.
Nadal 24 in 2013,
10 Lendl 22 in 1985.
11. Connors 21 in 1976.
Djokovic 21 in 2011 and 2016.
14 Roche 20 in 1969.
Borg 20 in 1978 and 1979.
17 Federer 19 in 2006.
Djokovic 19 in 2014.
19 Gimeno 18 in 1968.
Borg 18 in 1980.

 

[nolefam_2024]

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, Rod Laver is Nr. 1 in open era in number of wins over top ten opponents in a given year:

1. Laver 35 in 1969.
2. Djokovic 31 in 2015,
3. Laver 28 in 1968.
4. McEnroe 26 in 1984,
5. Laver 24 in 1970 and 1971.
Djokovic 24 in 2012 and 2013.
Nadal 24 in 2013,
10 Lendl 22 in 1985.
11. Connors 21 in 1976.
Djokovic 21 in 2011 and 2016.
14 Roche 20 in 1969.
Borg 20 in 1978 and 1979.
17 Federer 19 in 2006.
Djokovic 19 in 2014.
19 Gimeno 18 in 1968.
Borg 18 in 1980.

Djokovic and laver are two in their own tier in most cases.