Players with 8 Slams or More and Tough Losses

[McEnroeisanartist]

I thought it would be interesting to compare the number of tough losses (5 set losses in Grand Slam quarterfinals, semifinals and finals) of players with at least 8 grand slams. I have always said that Federer has suffered more tough losses than any player in history.

Roger Federer
41 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 1 5 Set loss
32 Grand Slam semifinals - 3 5 Set Losses
24 Grand Slam finals - 3 5 Set Losses
7 tough losses out of 97 matches = 7%

Pete Sampras
29 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 0 5 Set losses
23 Grand Slam semifinals - 2 5 Set Losses
18 Grand Slam finals - 0 5 set Losses
2 tough losses out of 70 matches = 3%

Bjorn Borg
21 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 1 5 Set Loss
17 Grand Slam semifinals - 0 5 Set Losses
16 Grand Slam finals - 1 5 Set Loss
2 tough losses out of 54 matches = 4%

Rafael Nadal
23 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 0 5 Set losses
19 Grand Slam semifinals - 0 5 Set Losses
16 Grand Slam finals - 2 5 Set losses
2 tough losses out of 58 matches = 3%

Jimmy Connors
41 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 2 5 Set losses
31 Grand Slam semifinals - 4 5 Set Losses
15 Grand Slam finals - 1 5 Set Loss
7 tough losses out of 87 matches = 8%

Ivan Lendl
34 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 3 5 Set Losses
28 Grand Slam semifinals - 3 5 Set Losses
19 Grand Slam finals - 2 5 Set Losses
8 tough losses out of 81 matches = 9.9%

Andre Agassi
36 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 3 5 Set Losses
26 Grand Slam semifinals - 4 5 Set Losses
15 Grand Slam finals - 1 5 Set Loss
8 tough losses out of 77 matches = 10.4%

 

[Gonzo_style]

Nadal W 2012 2R wasn't tough loss?

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Nadal W 2012 2R wasn't tough loss?

Not for the purposes of this analysis. I think any player would rather lose a 5 set match earlier in a tournament than later in the tournament.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Not for the purposes of this analysis. I think any player would rather lose a 5 set match earlier in a tournament than later in the tournament.

I don't think so. Players outside the top 20 would have been happier for a lot more money and ATP points.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I don't think so. Players outside the top 20 would have been happier for a lot more money and ATP points.

Okay, I should have said of the all time great players listed above, they would rather lose earlier in a tournament than later in a tournament.

 

[sureshs]

I thought it would be interesting to compare the number of tough losses (5 set losses in Grand Slam quarterfinals, semifinals and finals) of players with at least 8 grand slams. I have always said that Federer has suffered more tough losses than any player in history.

Roger Federer
41 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 1 5 Set loss
32 Grand Slam semifinals - 3 5 Set Losses
24 Grand Slam finals - 3 5 Set Losses
7 tough losses out of 97 matches = 7%

Pete Sampras
29 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 0 5 Set losses
23 Grand Slam semifinals - 2 5 Set Losses
18 Grand Slam finals - 0 5 set Losses
2 tough losses out of 70 matches = 3%

Bjorn Borg
21 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 1 5 Set Loss
17 Grand Slam semifinals - 0 5 Set Losses
16 Grand Slam finals - 1 5 Set Loss
2 tough losses out of 54 matches = 4%

Rafael Nadal
23 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 0 5 Set losses
19 Grand Slam semifinals - 0 5 Set Losses
16 Grand Slam finals - 2 5 Set losses
2 tough losses out of 58 matches = 3%

Jimmy Connors
41 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 2 5 Set losses
31 Grand Slam semifinals - 4 5 Set Losses
15 Grand Slam finals - 1 5 Set Loss
7 tough losses out of 87 matches = 8%

Ivan Lendl
34 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 3 5 Set Losses
28 Grand Slam semifinals - 3 5 Set Losses
19 Grand Slam finals - 2 5 Set Losses
8 tough losses out of 81 matches = 9.9%

Andre Agassi
36 Grand Slam quarterfinals - 3 5 Set Losses
26 Grand Slam semifinals - 4 5 Set Losses
15 Grand Slam finals - 1 5 Set Loss
8 tough losses out of 77 matches = 10.4%

Proves yet again that Nadal is better than Federer

 

[Steve0904]

Proves yet again that Nadal is better than Federer

By that logic, it also proves that Nadal is better than Borg, or that Federer is worse than everyone on this list bar Connors, Lendl, and Agassi, and that's debatable. It also proves that Nadal has played less such matches because he's younger. His percentage in a category like this is very likely to rise if he keeps playing into his 30's unless of course he just loses a lot of 3 or 4 set matches or doesn't make a lot of QF's, in which case it won't really matter because a loss is a loss no matter if it's in 4 or 5 sets and/or comes before the QF's.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Fascinating. Fresh from DOPES (Department Of Pointless, Excessive Statistics).

Thanks for the compliment about the stats being fascinating. I thought so too.

 

[sureshs]

By that logic, it also proves that Nadal is better than Borg, or that Federer is worse than everyone on this list bar Connors, Lendl, and Agassi, and that's debatable. It also proves that Nadal has played less such matches because he's younger. His percentage in a category like this is very likely to rise if he keeps playing into his 30's unless of course he just loses a lot of 3 or 4 set matches or doesn't make a lot of QF's, in which case it won't really matter because a loss is a loss no matter if it's in 4 or 5 sets and/or comes before the QF's.

Agassi has the Olympics gold which Fed does not have. And many say that he was lucky to be in a weak era.

 

[Steve0904]

Agassi has the Olympics gold which Fed does not have. And many say that he was lucky to be in a weak era.

Federer also has 17 slams, 9 more than Agassi, and countless other records that Agassi does not have. By that logic I could say Agassi was better than Sampras as well, or for that matter anybody on this list excluding Nadal, and if was going to be really picky I could say Federer has an Olympic Gold. People also say that Fed was so good that he didn't let anybody else win many slams.

 

[jokinla]

Fed of course has the most slams, and he lost another 3 in 5 sets, he could very easily have 20 slams, UNBELIEVABLE.

 

[elpolaco84]

Proves yet again that Nadal is better than Federer

Really? or just another stat that proves federer consistency? and not giving up till the end? or maybe he just needed to lose in 3 or 4 sets to have lower percentaje on

Matter of perspective i guess

 

[tacou]

I don't think this statistic says anything about who is "better," nor is it supposed to.

Very interesting stuff, however

 

[smoledman]

BS stat, it just proves Nadal gets blown out in QF/SF/F more often!

 

[90's Clay]

The Pistol- 2 tough loses out of 70 matches? Thats damn efficient on the big stage. Pete didn't lose much on the biggest stage of them all.

Also undefeated in night matches at the USO his entire career.

 

[Towser83]

The Pistol- 2 tough loses out of 70 matches? Thats damn efficient on the big stage. Pete didn't lose much on the biggest stage of them all.

Also undefeated in night matches at the USO his entire career.

That means he didn't lose that many matches that went to 5 sets, but he was beaten easier than that many times

Night matches at the US Open - one of the most pointless and desperate stats. What next? Someone has never lost a match at 3pm on a Wednesday afternoon :lol:

And I thought some Fed fans and commentators came up with pointless stats these days..

 

[roundiesee]

Never mind about the percentages; Federer played 97 matches in grand slams from the quarter finals onwards?? That itself is an astounding record,

 

[RAFA2005RG]

This analysis is wrong if you call Federer's 2009 AO final loss "tough". It was a cakewalk 5th set, 6-2.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Never mind about the percentages; Federer played 97 matches in grand slams from the quarter finals onwards?? That itself is an astounding record,

I know, more astounding than anything Lance Armstrong ever did.

 

[The Bawss]

Nadal W 2012 2R wasn't tough loss?

No, he was lucky to push the mighty Rosol to 5 sets.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

This analysis is wrong if you call Federer's 2009 AO final loss "tough". It was a cakewalk 5th set, 6-2.

By that same logic, Nadal losing to Federer 6-2 in the fifth set of their 2007 Wimbledon final wasn't tough.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

By that same logic, Nadal losing to Federer 6-2 in the fifth set of their 2007 Wimbledon final wasn't tough.

Exactly. I agree. A lot of 5 setters aren't "tough losses". Del Potro won a lopsided 5th set over Federer at the US Open too.

 

[tacou]

This analysis is wrong if you call Federer's 2009 AO final loss "tough". It was a cakewalk 5th set, 6-2.

isn't that the point? how many times has the player been in a 5th set deep in a slam and how many times did the player lose. how does the 5th set score matter?

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Exactly. I agree. A lot of 5 setters aren't "tough losses". Del Potro won a lopsided 5th set over Federer at the US Open too.

I think it is very subjective to describe what is a tough loss for a player. Federer was clearly devastated after losing the 2008 Wimbledon final and 2009 Australian Open final, but much less so losing the 2009 U.S. Open final.

Similarly, I remember reading that Nadal sobbed after losing the 2007 Wimbledon final, but felt that he was getting closer to Djokovic after losing the much closer 2012 Australian Open final.

 

[jokinla]

Losing a fifth set in the final of a slam is a tough loss no matter the score, have you guys never played tennis, losing in the final of the boys 14 sectional final 6-1 in the third was crushing, can't imagine losing a slam in the fifth.

 

[Steve0904]

If you work that hard to get to a 5th set, and lose, it doesn't matter what the score is. Come on people. Seriously.