Number of former/future champions beaten en route to Grand Slam Titles

Razer

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Sampras
1990USO - 3
1993W - 2
1993USO - 0
1994AO - 3
1994W - 1
1995W - 2
1995USO - 1
1996USO - 0
1997AO - 0
1997W - 1
1998W - 1
1999W - 1
2000W - 0
2002USO - 2

Federer
2003W - 0
2004AO - 1
2004W - 1
2004USO - 2
2005W - 1
2005USO - 2
2006AO - 0
2006W - 1
2006USO - 1
2007AO - 1
2007W - 1
2007USO - 2
2008USO - 2
2009RG - 0
2009W - 0
2010AO - 0
2012W - 2
2017AO - 2
2017W - 0
2018AO - 0

Nadal
2005FO - 1
2006FO - 2
2007FO - 3
2008FO - 2
2008W - 2
2009AO - 1
2010FO - 0
2010W - 1
2010USO - 1
2011FO - 1
2012FO - 1
2013FO - 2
2013USO - 1
2014FO - 1
2017FO - 1
2017USO - 1
2018FO - 0
2019FO - 1
2019USO - 1
2020FO - 1
2022AO - 0
2022FO - 1

Djokovic
2008AO - 1
2011AO - 1
2011W - 1
2011USO - 2
2012AO - 1
2013AO - 1
2014W - 1
2015AO - 1
2015W - 1
2015USO - 2
2016AO - 1
2016FO - 0
2018W - 1
2018USO - 1
2019AO - 1
2019W - 1
2020AO - 1
2021AO - 0
2021FO - 1
2021W - 0
2022W - 1
2023AO - 0
2023 FO - 1
2023 USO - 1

Total Tally
Sampras - 17 champs beaten to win 14 slams -> 1.21 champ per slam
Nadal - 25 champs beaten to win 22 slams -> 1.13 champ per slam
Federer - 19 champs beaten to win 20 slams -> 0.95 champ per slam
Djokovic - 22 champs beaten to win 24 slams -> 0.91 champ per slam
 
Last edited:
weakera said:
Hmmm... what it tell? :unsure: :alien:
Click to expand...

It doesn't always mean you beat someone who could have won the title, like for example Nadal beating Carlos Moya in 2007 doesn't mean much, but it is still a cool trivia to say that I've beaten a former champ en route. I've edited the post for Sampras as well, he too seems to have beaten a lot of former champs en route to his slams like Nadal.
 
There’s some problems with this list. Nadal beat Medvedev at AO 22, why isn’t that counted? Same with Roddick at Wimbledon 2003. Also Novak beat Thiem at RG 2016 and Medvedev at AO 21
 
TheNachoMan said:
There’s some problems with this list. Nadal beat Medvedev at AO 22, why isn’t that counted? Same with Roddick at Wimbledon 2003. Also Novak beat Thiem at RG 2016 and Medvedev at AO 21
Click to expand...

Medvedev is not an Australian open champion.
Thiem is not a French open champion.
Roddick hasn't ever won Wimbledon.

Only their relevant slams (i.e USO) will be counted in former/future champ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
rick kerr said:
Medvedev is not an Australian open champion.
Thiem is not a French open champion.
Roddick hasn't ever won Wimbledon.

Only their relevant slams (i.e USO) will be counted in former/future champ.
Click to expand...

USO 2004 had Agassi and Hewitt, both former champions.
 
TheNachoMan said:
Just count every time they’ve beaten a slam champ. Or it gets complicated.
Click to expand...

So beating Wawrinka at wimbledon should count? Or beating Sampras on clay ?

A former champ at that slam is the only way to judge them, too bad thiem could not win french, roddick could not win wimbledon, but it is what it is.

NatF said:
USO 2004 had Agassi and Hewitt, both former champions.
Click to expand...

Thanks.... Corrected it. (y)
 
TheNachoMan said:
Just count every time they’ve beaten a slam champ. Or it gets complicated.
Click to expand...
It might not fit the narrative.
But suppose we stick to OP's rule and revisit the topic in a few years after the youngsters win their majors. Novak could have reached 23 just by letting Murray win once in their 5 AO encounters. LOL.
 
I can see Nadal's being high just from RG alone, since he beat Federer and and Djokovic a total of 14 times, and both Federer and Djokovic won RG.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
Djokovic beat Sinner at Wimbledon 2022.
Click to expand...

Edited, since this is an old post at that time SInner was not a W champ, so now it has been upgraded.

Hitman said:
I can see Nadal's being high just from RG alone, since he beat Federer and and Djokovic a total of 14 times, and both Federer and Djokovic won RG.
Click to expand...

Nadal's stats are a bit inflated by RGs because it automatically assumes that Federer and Djokovic are too great on clay which is not entirely true.
 
junkieballer said:
Imagine thinking that beating 24 Slam winner is the same as beating a 1 Slam winner
Click to expand...

This stat is about winning slam beating that particular slam's former/future winners en route.

That means Nadal never beat Djokovic at the AO, Wawrinka beat Djokovic to win AO. Are we to believe Nadal's wins have less value than Stan's in Australia ?

Nadal beat Fed to win his AO 09 and Stan beat Djoko and Nadal to win his AO.

You cannot say Nadal's win has less value because Djokovic has more AOs than Federer... such logics dont work, thats why beating a 1 slam winner is counted similar to a 10 slam winner at that slam.
 
Razer said:
This stat is about winning slam beating that particular slam's former/future winners en route.

That means Nadal never beat Djokovic at the AO, Wawrinka beat Djokovic to win AO. Are we to believe Nadal's wins have less value than Stan's in Australia ?

Nadal beat Fed to win his AO 09 and Stan beat Djoko and Nadal to win his AO.

You cannot say Nadal's win has less value because Djokovic has more AOs than Federer... such logics dont work, thats why beating a 1 slam winner is counted similar to a 10 slam winner at that slam.
Click to expand...
Beating Nadal at FO is the same as beating Gaudio according to this stat. Completely useless stat.
 
junkieballer said:
Beating Nadal at FO is the same as beating Gaudio according to this stat. Completely useless stat.
Click to expand...

Has anyone beaten Gaudio and won the french open after 2004 ? If yes then this stat would hold a lot of value because you would have to beat Nadal too en route to win it.

This stat perfectly shows who has faced the strongest competition and that is Pete Sampras.
 
Why don't you post the number of Slams won by the opponents beaten?

For example beating Fed at Wimbledon is worth 8 pts, beating Hewitt 1 point.

And you should also consider that Nole in some Slams beat players who are still young and may win Slams in the future
 
Razer said:
Has anyone beaten Gaudio and won the french open after 2004 ? If yes then this stat would hold a lot of value because you would have to beat Nadal too en route to win it.

This stat perfectly shows who has faced the strongest competition and that is Pete Sampras.
Click to expand...
Beating Hewitt at Wimbledon has the same value as beating Federer according to this stat.

No way beating a 8 time champion has the same value as beating a 1 time champion
 
Razer said:
Edited, since this is an old post at that time SInner was not a W champ, so now it has been upgraded.



Nadal's stats are a bit inflated by RGs because it automatically assumes that Federer and Djokovic are too great on clay which is not entirely true.
Click to expand...

Wawrinka winning it once, also boosts Nadal's numbers there, an additional two wins.
 
Slams won by beating a former/future champ:

Nadal - 19/22 = 86.4%
Djokovic - 20/24 = 83.3%
Sampras - 10/14 = 71.4%
Federer - 13/20 = 65%

This is how cherrypicking can be manipulated for the outcome you want.
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
Sampras
1990USO - 3
1993W - 2
1993USO - 0
1994AO - 3
1994W - 1
1995W - 2
1995USO - 1
1996USO - 0
1997AO - 0
1997W - 1
1998W - 1
1999W - 1
2000W - 0
2002USO - 2

Federer
2003W - 0
2004AO - 1
2004W - 1
2004USO - 2
2005W - 1
2005USO - 2
2006AO - 0
2006W - 1
2006USO - 1
2007AO - 1
2007W - 1
2007USO - 2
2008USO - 2
2009RG - 0
2009W - 0
2010AO - 0
2012W - 2
2012AO - 2
2017W - 0
2018AO - 0

Nadal
2005FO - 1
2006FO - 2
2007FO - 3
2008FO - 2
2008W - 2
2009AO - 1
2010FO - 0
2010W - 1
2010USO - 1
2011FO - 1
2012FO - 1
2013FO - 2
2013USO - 1
2014FO - 1
2017FO - 1
2017USO - 1
2018FO - 0
2019FO - 1
2019USO - 1
2020FO - 1
2022AO - 0
2022FO - 1

Djokovic
2008AO - 1
2011AO - 1
2011W - 1
2011USO - 2
2012AO - 1
2013AO - 1
2014W - 1
2015AO - 1
2015W - 1
2015USO - 2
2016AO - 1
2016FO - 0
2018W - 1
2018USO - 1
2019AO - 1
2019W - 1
2020AO - 1
2021AO - 0
2021FO - 1
2021W - 0
2022W - 1
2023AO - 0
2023 USO - 1

Total Tally
Sampras - 17 champs beaten to win 14 slams -> 1.21 champ per slam
Nadal - 25 champs beaten to win 22 slams -> 1.13 champ per slam
Federer - 19 champs beaten to win 20 slams -> 0.95 champ per slam
Djokovic - 22 champs beaten to win 24 slams -> 0.91 champ per slam
Click to expand...
For Federer '04 US: the two champs Federer had to beat were Agassi & Hewitt. Both would win none in the future.

For Djokovic '11 US: the two champs Djokovic had to beat were Federer & Nadal. Both would go on and win more slams in the future. And because of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal could've won a lot more slams.

And yet, the two received equal billing in the scoring system. Why not go straight and say, besides Federer, the other players had very little chance of winning a non-clay slam in 2004?
 
Beating 20 slam winner and beating 1 slam winner both gets equal rating.
No need for context.???
and how a guy who will become future champion beating him is equal to beating past champion.
Mixing past present future champions .
what kind of logic is this.
And then someone argues you cannot mix generations.
 
and i see winning vs 19 champs to 20 titles is in some strange way better than win vs 22 champs to 24 slams! nole won both vs more champs and more titles but did it worse! fed fans logic is very funny. i guess that some player who won vs 2 champs and only 1 title is the GOAT!
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Lol I do not say this stat is not flawed, it completely is. But you of all people complaining about someone posting flawed stats is absolutely hilarious. Almost as good as your former gem "mods stop it".
Click to expand...
The "Fed was peak 2015" definition is in constant change to fit the narrative. I remember slam SFs reached used to be Fed-haters favourite definition of peak, but that would mean Nole is peak now lol.
 
GoatNo1 said:
and i see winning vs 19 champs to 20 titles is in some strange way better than win vs 22 champs to 24 slams! nole won both vs more champs and more titles but did it worse! fed fans logic is very funny. i guess that some player who won vs 2 champs and only 1 title is the GOAT!
Click to expand...
I really dont think Fed-fans have any problems with this. Its the "Fed was peak 2014-2019" narrative that is hilarious

(You dont need to tell us what Fed said back in 2015 for the gazillionth time, we know)
 
Another flaw of this thread is that beating a player in the 1st round has the same value as beating a player in the final.

According to this thread winning French Open beating #100 ranked Gaudio in the 1st round would have the same value as winning French Open beating #1 Nadal in the final LOL
 
Jonas78 said:
I really dont think Fed-fans have any problems with this. Its the "Fed was peak 2014-2019" narrative that is hilarious

(You dont need to tell us what Fed said back in 2015 for the gazillionth time, we know)
Click to expand...
Yes another example of fed fans delusion. Maybe not paek but surely prime. No one, not even Fed, wins 2 slams in a season or is no1 not being in his prime!
 
Wins over Big3/Alcaraz in finals or semifinals of Slams won:

Djokovic and Nadal 16
Federer 6

Slams won beating Big3/Alcaraz in their best Slam in the semifinal or final (Federer at Wimbledon, Nadal at French Open, Djokovic at Australian Open, Alcaraz at French Open ?):

Djokovic 4 or 5 (depending if Alcaraz's best Slam ends up being FO)
Nadal 1
Federer 0
 
GoatNo1 said:
Yes another example of fed fans delusion. Maybe not paek but surely prime. No one, not even Fed, wins 2 slams in a season or is no1 not being in his prime!
Click to expand...
Thats BS, because Nole could verly likely win 2 slams in 2024 or 2025 without Sincaraz around. When you play washed out Cilic in the finals sure you can win without being peak.
 
junkieballer said:
Another flaw of this thread is that beating a player in the 1st round has the same value as beating a player in the final.

According to this thread winning French Open beating #100 ranked Gaudio in the 1st round would have the same value as winning French Open beating #1 Nadal in the final LOL
Click to expand...
It also says Krajicek beating peak Pete at Wimbledon 96 or Nadal beating prime Fed at Wimbledon 2008 has the same value as someone beating Johannson in any year in the first week at the AO. Of course these stats are not useful to determine who really faced the toughest competition, it is just a little fun to see who won slams with facing most slam-winners.
 
Jonas78 said:
So you say current nole is peak?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure because he is struggling a bit to reach semis, but anyway I think that peak Nole can lose to Alcaraz and Sinner.

In this period in the most important tournaments (including DC semifinal which was more important than Masters for Nole, I think) he only lost to Alcaraz and Sinner:

2022 Wimbledon - won
2022 ATP Finals - won without losing a match
2023 Australian Open - won
2023 French Open - won
2023 Wimbleon - lost in the final to Alcaraz
2023 US Open - won
2023 ATP Finals - won, but lost a RR match to Sinner
2023 Davis Cup - lost in the semifinal to Sinner
2024 Australian Open - lost in the semifinal to Alcaraz
2024 French Open - reached quarterfinals and withdrew
2024 Wimbledon - lost the final to Alcaraz
2024 Olympics - won
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UnderratedSlam
Numbers of Grand Slam losses to eventual champions.
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
adil1972
A
VAPORHEAD
Most GS Champions / #1 Defeated en Route to a GS Title?
Replies
7
Views
953
Mazz Retic
Mazz Retic
Back
Top