Ranking the greatest SLAM RUNS - in terms of number of defeated slam champs.

[UnderratedSlam]

This is not intended to be a perfect ranking, a fair, highly objective ranking. There are far more complex and accurate ways of ranking slam runs. This is just one of the more basic ways, but not inaccurate either because it tells us how many big names i.e. slam champs had to be defeated on the way to a slam trophy. Which to me is the biggest factor in rating slam runs.

A thread that examines the "greatest slam runs" in terms of how many slam winners (past/future) were defeated along the way. This means that a win over Federer at a slam in 2002 counts as well as defeating him in 2011. Defeating any slam champs at a slam counts, not just at that slam. But to make it easier, I have bolded all the wins over guys who won at that very same slam (in the past or the future).

Obviously, the more recent slam runs include wins over guys who are yet to win slams, hence these runs are by definition "undervalued" and will be ranked low or lower than they might eventually be. For example, FAA might win a slam one day, in which case Nadal's FO 22 run will increase by having one more name to its tally.

The way I ranked the runs is purely based on numbers of champs defeated, hence it isn't meant to be an "ultimate" ranking of slam wins. It's meant to be a fun list, that's all. Of course there are other factors that can be included to make a more "scientifically accurate" ranking: defeating the defending champ, defeating next year's champ, defeating a player who had been dominating that particular slam for years (examples USO09, W08), defeating a player who was aiming to win 4 slams in a row (examples USO21, FO07, FO94)... However, that would be way too complicated and I can't be doing this thread for a year. Deciding also on how much to value these "bonuses" is very subjective.

Obviously, this ranking puts the Big 3 at a disadvantage because they had less slam champs on offer than previous generations, but then again, they all vultured (some more, some less) hence...

When slams are tied, for example a bunch of runs with 3 wins each, I give the advantage to the slam runs with wins over a slam champ at that very same slam. In other words, beating Kuerten at FO can be a bonus in such situations compared to defeating him at Wimbledon which he never won.

The ranking of individual slam runs:

Bolded are the wins over champs who won that slam.

----------- FIVE defeated champs -------------

Nadal FO 07: Federer, Djokovic, Hewitt, Moya, Delpo


----------- FOUR defeated champs -------------

Delpo USO 09: Federer, Nadal, Cilic, Ferrero

Sampras USO 90: Agassi, Mac, Lendl, Muster

Courier FO 92: Korda, Ivanisevic, Muster, Agassi

Courier AO 93: Stich, Edberg, Bruguera, Korda

Edberg USO 92: Sampras, Chang, Lendl, Krajicek

Federer W 07: Nadal, Ferrero, Safin, Delpo

Kafelnikov FO 96: Stich, Sampras, Krajicek, Johansson

Ivanisevic W 01: Rafter, Safin, Moya, Roddick


----------- THREE defeated champs -------------

Kuerten FO 97: Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Muster

Kuerten FO 00: Ferrero, Kafelnikov, Chang

Lendl USO 87: Wilander, Connors, Mac

Sampras AO 94: Courier, Lendl, Kafelnikov

Muster FO 95: Chang, Kafelnikov, Costa

Agassi W 92: Ivanisevic, Mac, Becker

Hewitt USO 01: Sampras, Kafelnikov, Roddick

Agassi AO 95: Sampras, Kafelnikov, Rafter

Becker AO 96: Chang, Kafelnikov, Johansson

Stich W 91: Becker, Edberg, Courier

Sampras W 93: Courier, Becker, Agassi

Federer USO 04: Hewitt, Agassi, Costa

Federer W 05: Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero

Nadal FO 06: Federer, Djokovic, Hewitt

Safin AO 05: Hewitt, Federer, Djokovic

Courier FO 91: Agassi, Stich, Edberg

Edberg USO 91: Courier, Lendl, Chang

Chang FO 89: Lendl, Sampras, Edberg

Edberg W 90: Becker, Lendl, Chang

Federer AO 04: Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt

Cash W 87: Connors, Lendl, Wilander

Federer W 04: Roddick, Hewitt, Johansson

Nadal FO 14: Djokovic, Murray, Thiem

Djokovic AO 12: Nadal, Murray, Hewitt

Agassi USO 94: Stich, Muster, Chang

Sampras AO 97: Moya, Muster, Costa


----------- TWO defeated champs -------------

Krajicek W 96: Sampras, Stich

Federer USO 07: Djokovic, Roddick

Federer USO 08: Murray, Djokovic

Nadal FO 08: Federer, Djokovic

Nadal W 08: Federer, Murray

Federer USO 05: Agassi, Hewitt

Sampras W 95: Becker, Ivanisevic

Kuerten FO 01: Ferrero, Kafelnikov

Agassi AO 00: Kafelnikov, Sampras

Costa FO 02: Ferrero, Kuerten

Djokovic USO 11: Nadal, Federer

Federer W 12: Murray, Djokovic

Nadal FO 13: Djokovic, Wawrinka

Lendl FO 87: Wilander, Gomez

Wawrinka FO 15: Djokovic, Federer

Djokovic USO 15: Federer, Cilic

Murray USO 12: Djokovic, Cilic

Wawrinka AO 14: Nadal, Djokovic

Wawrinka USO 16: Djokovic, Delpo

Federer AO 17: Nadal, Wawrinka

Nadal USO 19: Medvedev, Cilic

Thiem USO 20: Medvedev, Cilic

Gomez FO 90: Agassi, Muster

Sampras USO 02: Agassi, Roddick

Courier AO 92: Edberg, Muster

Sampras USO 95: Agassi, Courier

Djokovic AO 08: Federer, Hewitt

Djokovic AO 20: Thiem, Federer

Sampras W 97: Becker, Korda

Djokovic W 14: Federer, Cilic

Rafter USO 97: Chang, Agassi

Bruguera FO 93: Courier, Sampras

Bruguera FO 94: Courier, Rafter

Rafter USO 98: Sampras, Ivanisevic

Sampras W 94: Ivanisevic, Chang

Safin USO 00: Sampras, Ferrero

Becker W 89: Edberg, Lendl

Nadal FO 11: Federer, Murray

Wilander AO 88: Cash, Edberg

Federer AO 07: Roddick, Djokovic

Lendl AO 90: Edberg (NF), Noah

Djokovic AO 15: Murray, Wawrinka

Djokovic W 15: Federer, Cilic

Djokovic AO 16: Murray, Federer

Nadal FO 17: Wawrinka, Thiem

Becker USO 89: Lendl, Noah

Djokovic AO 19: Nadal, Medvedev

Nadal FO 19: Thiem, Federer

Djokovic AO 13: Murray, Wawrinka

Djokovic AO 11: Murray, Federer

Nadal FO 18: Thiem, Delpo

Lendl AO 89: Muster, Mac

Federer AO 10: Murray, Hewitt

Djokovic FO 16: Murray, Thiem

Sampras USO 96: Chang, Ivanisevic


----------- ONE defeated champ -------------

Becker AO 91: Lendl

Nadal AO 09: Federer

Nadal FO 12: Djokovic

Nadal USO 17: Delpo

Nadal FO 20: Djokovic

Djokovic W 19: Federer

Djokovic FO 21: Nadal

Cilic USO 14: Federer

Djokovic W 11: Nadal

Djokovic W18: Nadal

Djokovic USO 18: Delpo

Nadal W 10: Murray

Nadal USO 10: Djokovic

Murray W 13: Djokovic

Nadal USO 13: Djokovic

Johansson AO 02: Safin

Sampras W 98: Ivanisevic

Federer W 06: Nadal

Nadal FO 05: Federer

Federer USO 06: Roddick

Agassi FO 99: Moya

Nadal FO 22: Djokovic

Lendl USO 86: Edberg

Edberg W 88: Becker

Wilander USO 88: Lendl

Wilander FO 88: Agassi

Lendl FO 86: Gomez

Ferrero FO 03: Costa

Kafelnikov AO 99: Courier (NF)

Sampras W 99: Agassi

Medvedev USO 21: Djokovic

Federer W 17: Cilic

Federer AO 18: Cilic

Nadal FO 10: Hewitt

Djokovic AO 21: Medvedev

Federer FO 09: Delpo

Federer W 09: Roddick

Sampras USO 93: Chang

Agassi AO 01: Rafter

Gaudio FO 04: Hewitt

Sampras W 00: Rafter

Becker W 86: Lendl

Edberg AO 87: Cash

Nadal AO 22: Medvedev

Agassi USO 99: Kafelnikov

Federer W 03: Roddick

Roddick USO 03: Ferrero


----------- ZERO defeated champs (The Great Vulturing) -------------

Korda AO 98: -

Agassi AO 03: -

Murray W 16: -

Djokovic W 21: -

Federer AO 06: -

Hewitt W 02: -

Moya FO 98: -

 

[UnderratedSlam]

A chart showing how runs changed over the years.

Year		AO	FO	W	USO		Average per season
1990		2	2	3	4		2.75
1991		1	3	3	3		2.5
1992		2 ***	4	3	4		3.25
1993		4	2	3	1		2.5
1994		3	2	2	3		2.5
1995		3	3	2	2		2.5
1996		3	4	2	2		2.75
1997		3	3	2	2		2.5
1998		0	0	1	2		0.75
1999		1	1	1	1		1
2000		2	3	1	2		2
2001		1	2	4	3		2.5
2002		1	2	0	2		1.25
2003		0	1	1	1		0.75
2004		3	1	3	3		2.5
2005		3	1	3	2		2.25
2006		0	3	1	1		1.25
2007		2	5	4	2		3.25
2008		2	2	2	2		2
2009		1	1	1	4		1.75
2010		2	1	1	1		1.25
2011		2	2	1	2		1.75
2012		3	1	2	2		2
2013		2	2	1	1		1.5
2014		2	3	2	1		2
2015		2	2	2	2		2
2016		2	2	0	2		1.5
2017		2	2	1	1		1.5
2018		1	2	1	1		1.25
2019		2	2	1	2		1.75
2020		2	1	NA	2		1.67
2021		1	1	0	1		0.75
2022		1	1				1
Average per slam		1.85	2.03	1.74	2.00

*** Courier was supposed to play Krajicek in the semis but got a W/O. Given Krajicek's weak H2H vs other slam champs at slams and given his rather negative H2H vs Courier, and given Courier's dominance during that period, it is almost a safe bet that Jim would have won the semis, hence would have had three instead of two wins in this slam run.

In the early 90s the average was quite high with plenty of 3s and 4s, but then in the late 90s there was a sudden drop. You are free to interpret it as you like.

However, one thing that is not up for debate is that in the recent years of the Big 3 era the number of slam champs in draws had fallen substantially, simply because the Big 3 won almost everything. In other words, during the Big 3 era (the latter stages) it is far more rare to get to play and defeat 3 or 4 slam champs simply because there are only 5-7 of them in a typical modern era draw. Whereas in the 90s you'd have twice that number in a typical draw.

I picked a 90s slam randomly, FO95 to be exact, and counted the number of past/future slam champs in the draw. There were 17 of them.

Compare that to AO17 when there were 8 slam champs in the draw. (Obviously, that number can go higher if for example Zverev and a few others win slams later, but it is highly unlikely to get anywhere close to 17 i.e. the kind of numbers we had in the more competitive eras such as the 90s.)

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The most common occurrence is defeating two slam champs at slams, it's the average pretty much.

From 1986 until 2022.

5 players ----- 1 x

4 players ----- 8 x

3 players ----- 26 x

2 players ----- 55 x

1 player ----- 47 x

0 players ----- 7 x

 

[Lozo1016]

Is Delpo '09 the only one on the list who beat 4 guys who all went to the final of that particular slam (Federer, Nadal, Cilic USO Winners and Ferrero losing in the final).

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Is Delpo '09 the only one on the list who beat 4 guys who all went to the final of that particular slam (Federer, Nadal, Cilic USO Winners and Ferrero losing in the final).

Absolutely true.

Well done.

 

[Hitman]

There is a flaw I see in this.

How many slam champions is someone likely to beat nowadays? As big three has won so much, the pool of potential slam champions to beat nowadays is very low. For instance, Medvedev right now really only has Djokovic Nadal, semi retired Murray and semi retired Wawrinka, with AWOL Thiem and and absent Federer.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

There is a flaw I see in this.

How many slam champions is someone likely to beat nowadays? As big three has won so much, the pool of potential slam champions to beat nowadays is very low. For instance, Medvedev right now really only has Djokovic Nadal, semi retired Murray and semi retired Wawrinka, with AWOL Thiem and and absent Federer.

You need to read the intro before you post...

And that includes my 2nd post, which wouldn't fit into the intro coz I hit the TTW limit.

I am way ahead of you. Literally the 1st sentence of the thread states that this system is simple and has flaws.

Or are you disappointed these stats have nothing to support your Djokovic fan agenda?

It's meant to be a fun set of stats, not to inflame fan wars...

 

[Hitman]

You need to read the intro before you post...

And that includes my 2nd post, which wouldn't fit into the intro coz I hit the TTW limit.

I am way ahead of you.

OK, so what's the answer then in your eyes, you acknowledge that it isn't really fair on the younger guys.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

OK, so what's the answer then in your eyes, you acknowledge that it isn't really fair on the younger guys.

Isn't fair, yet Nadal holds the all-time record...

Literally the only ones "harmed" are Cilic, Wawrinka, Thiem and Medvedev.

Delpo has one of the best 5 results yet he was born same year as Cilic, so...

The answer?

Read the intro. I explain everything in the first two posts.

 

[Krish872007]

Hats off, must have taken a while just to compile this information!

 

[Hitman]

Isn't fair, yet Nadal holds the all-time record...

OK.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

OK.

Is this about Djokovic's numbers not being "impressive" enough? If you're trying to push a fan agenda here, argue with someone else, I could give a hoot about fan agendas as far as this thread goes... It is what it is. Anyone not happy enough, file a complaint to ITF organizers or God...

As I explained in the intro, the system isn't meant to be an ultimate slam-run ranking, just a fun list that contains LOTS of useful numbers and some interesting trends.

 

[Hitman]

Is this about Djokovic's numbers not being "impressive" enough? If you're trying to push a fan agenda here, argue with someone else, I could give a hoot about fan agendas as far as this thread goes... It is what it is. Anyone not happy enough, file a complaint to ITF organizers or God...

As I explained in the intro, the system isn't meant to be an ultimate slam-run ranking, just a fun list that contains LOTS of useful numbers and some interesting trends.

Huh?

I am talking about the flaw in regarding to the younger player not having the same chance due to Big 3 players, how the heck does that involve Djokovic who had a chance to play many slam players? LOL - Seems to me you are looking for a reason why I picked on it, and surely MUST BE me being a Djokovic fan.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Huh?

I am talking about the flaw in regarding to the younger player not having the same chance due to Big 3 players, how the heck does that involve Djokovic who had a chance to play many slam players? LOL - Seems to me you are looking for a reason why I picked on it, and surely MUST BE me being a Djokovic fan.

Well, I explained in detail how the system is flawed, but you didn't bother reading anything. You just posted.

Also, pretending that TTW isn't awash with Big 3 agenda-seeking users is a bit... unconvincing.

If Djokovic had a 6-win record, would you have complained?

I am not saying this is the case, but you do sound like a Big 3 agenda-seeker being upset your player doesn't "own" the winner board here... This thread is definitely NOT one of those feeble "GOAT race decided" threads. It has nothing to do with the mythical GOAT subject that I don't give a hoot about, but which you clearly believe in...

If the only thing you learned out of this thread is "it has flaws" then good luck to you...

 

[J D]

Pretty random stat - depends on the (un)luck of the draw, facing some former or future champions with lowish rankings at the time, and other champions not losing in earlier rounds.

It would seem that a player's record against top 5 or top 10 players in slams would be a better indicator of performing at the highest level against the best competition when it mattered the most.

Interesting idea, though.

 

[Hitman]

Well, I explained in detail how the system is flawed, but you didn't bother reading anything. You just posted.

Also, pretending that TTW isn't awash with Big 3 agenda-seeking users is a bit... unconvincing.

If Djokovic had a 6-win record, would you have complained?

I am not saying this is the case, or I hope not. This thread is definitely NOT one of those feeble "GOAT race decided" threads. It has nothing to do with the mythical GOAT subject that I don't give a hoot about...

If the only thing you learned out of this thread is "it has flaws" then good luck to you...

Look, let me say it like this.

Between Djokovic and Nadal, Nadal absolutely tops the list in your list here, because they both played against the same pool of players that had won slams. No issues. This ISN'T about Djokovic. I simply said that younger players don't have the same luxury, as three dominant players dried out the pool of potential slam winners, so yeah, no matter how you say it, it is unfair.

You CAN say that Nadal, and Djokovic and Federer are that much greater, and is a testament to them, and then I don't know, maybe make wins over them more valuable, but in a one to one, where all slam wins are equal in regards to slam winners, younger players don't have the same pool to rack up bigger numbers of slam winners they could beat. I mean, how many slam winners could Medvedev have possibly beaten for his USO title? Nadal, Thiem, Federer were not playing, it was just Djokovic and Murray.

And stop jumping to conclusions, I know this isn't about GOAT debate, a player in the 90s might have pulled this off, as more slam champions were around. I don't need to obsess about this whole narrative of my guy is better than your guy when I have seen four decades of tennis.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Pretty random stat - depends on the (un)luck of the draw, facing some former or future champions with lowish rankings at the time, and other champions not losing in earlier rounds.

It would seem that a player's record against top 5 or top 10 players in slams would be a better indicator of performing at the highest level against the best competition when it mattered the most.

Of course there are systems for creating a "fairer" ranking.

I did explain it in the intro.

I wonder why all these "serious" tennis fans can't bother to read a thread intro they comment on...

Calling the stats "random" is rubbish, of course... If they were random then Korda who rarely beat big names in slams would have won a slam beating 3-4 champs... But he instead vultured his only slam because he sucked against the big names.

Yes, the biggest names are slam winners not occasional top 10 players...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Look, let me say it like this.

Between Djokovic and Nadal, Nadal absolutely tops the list in your list here, because they both played against the same pool of players that had won slams. No issues. This ISN'T about Djokovic. I simply said that younger players don't have the same luxury, as three dominant players dried out the pool of potential slam winners, so yeah, no matter how you say it, it is unfair.

You CAN say that Nadal, and Djokovic and Federer are that much greater, and is a testament to them, and then I don't know, maybe make wins over them more valuable, but in a one to one, where all slam wins are equal in regards to slam winners, younger players don't have the same pool to rack up bigger numbers of slam winners they could beat. I mean, how many slam winners could Medvedev have possibly beaten for his USO title? Nadal, Thiem, Federer were not playing, it was just Djokovic and Murray.

And stop jumping to conclusions, I know this isn't about GOAT debate, a player in the 90s might have pulled this off, as more slam champions were around. I don't need to obsess about this whole narrative of my guy is better than your guy when I have seen four decades of tennis.

And yet the late 90s has several "weak" runs, despite the large offer of slam champs in the draws...

But yeah, if the only thing you find useful here is to moan that eras have different numbers of slam champs (which is very obvious and mentioned by me already 15 times) then you are too much of a perfectionist and this thread won't make you happy, as nearly all other such threads can't, because there are zero flawless systems.

 

[Hitman]

And yet the late 90s has several "weak" runs, despite the large offer of slam champs in the draws...

But yeah, if the only thing you find useful here is to moan that eras have different numbers of slam champs (which is very obvious and mentioned by me already 15 times) then you are too much of a perfectionist and this thread won't make you happy, as nearly all other such threads can't, because there are zero flawless systems.

You've really stretched this out, haven't you? I said I saw a flaw, you simply told me yeah and pointed me to some key things you stated to clarify and I moved on with an OK......

Why are we still going on about this?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Hats off, must have taken a while just to compile this information!

Yeah, and you'd think people would appreciate it instead of moan - just because their fave Big 3 player isn't "the best", or because they expect some imaginary "perfect" ranking system.

I had a bunch of these numbers already from years before, I only had to fill in the missing years, the recent slams.

I have tons of such overly specific stats compiled on my old Excel sheets...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You've really stretched this out, haven't you? I said I saw a flaw, you simply told me yeah and pointed me to some key things you stated to clarify and I moved on with an OK......

Why are we still going on about this?

To keep the thread alive?

 

[Deleted member 792641]

1998-2003

ROFL

 

[Hitman]

To keep the thread alive?

By derailing it and talking about what you think are the reasons for me posting in it, because it surely must be because my guy isn't the best? Hehe

Anyways, enjoy your thread.

 

[Thinker_145]

I don't think giving importance to beating a future champ makes much sense.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I don't think giving importance to beating a future champ makes much sense.

Hitting a little yellow ball 5 trillion times makes no sense either, but some people do it.

So would you consider defeating Hewitt in 2015 was tougher than beating him in 1999?

It all varies from one case to the next, and you can find flaws in every system.

Certainly beating an injured Nadal in 2010 AO is far easier than beating him in 2004.

You want a perfect system?

There isn't one.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

People get too hung up on the rankings here, instead of just READING the results, analyzing the data, learning from it, drawing conclusions.

I could have just as easily listed all the results chronologically. But that would have been less neat than this way. Besides, you've got the table in post no 2 where you get a chronological listing of the number of wins.

But it's not a thread for Big 3 fanbases, it is an interesting data compilation for tennis fans interested in trends, era changes and other aspects of slam tennis.

The Big 3 are just a small part of this thread.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Chart from post no 2 updated:

Year		AO	FO	W	USO		Average per season
1986		NA	1	1	1		1
1987		1	2	3	3		2.25
1988		2	1	1	1		1.25
1989		2	3	2	2		2.25
1990		2	2	3	4		2.75
1991		1	3	3	3		2.5
1992		2	4	3	4		3.25
1993		4	2	3	1		2.5
1994		3	2	2	3		2.5
1995		3	3	2	2		2.5
1996		3	4	2	2		2.75
1997		3	3	2	2		2.5
1998		0	0	1	2		0.75
1999		1	1	1	1		1
2000		2	3	1	2		2
2001		1	2	4	3		2.5
2002		1	2	0	2		1.25
2003		0	1	1	1		0.75
2004		3	1	3	3		2.5
2005		3	1	3	2		2.25
2006		0	3	1	1		1.25
2007		2	5	4	2		3.25
2008		2	2	2	2		2
2009		1	1	1	4		1.75
2010		2	1	1	1		1.25
2011		2	2	1	2		1.75
2012		3	1	2	2		2
2013		2	2	1	1		1.5
2014		2	3	2	1		2
2015		2	2	2	2		2
2016		2	2	0	2		1.5
2017		2	2	1	1		1.5
2018		1	2	1	1		1.25
2019		2	2	1	2		1.75
2020		2	1	NA	2		1.67
2021		1	1	0	1		0.75
2022		1	1				1
Average per slam		1.83	2	1.74	1.97		1.89

Now that I've done the numbers for 86-89 and added them to the other data, it appears that the numbers are during that period were clearly lower, i.e. that 1990 marked a more-or-less sudden increase, meaning that the first half of the 90s has the highest values in the Open Era.

Also, it's logical that Wimbledon has the lowest average. Grass has least specialists hence the draw is somewhat easier to plow through for grass specialists - than it is for HC specialists in a HC slam. Less slam champs reaching later stages at Wimbledon, probably.