Roger Federer's Grand Slam Finals Matches

[serve/and/volley]

Though Federer's career (as well as his opponents) is in progress, let's take a look at how his Grand Slam finals matches compares with the great ones. One way to measure the quality of an opponent in a Grand Slam final is the count the total # of Grand Slam titles the opponent as won - Opponent Grand Slam (OPS). This is in a way somewhat superficial, but it is a quick way of numerically looking at a player's opponent. Here is the thread containing all the info and rankings of the other players:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195564

The following are Federer's Grand Slam finals stats:

12 Grand Slam wins
1) 0 GS, Mark Philippousis, 2003 Wimbledon
2) 2 GS, Marat Safin, 2004 Australian Open
3) 1 GS, Andy Roddick, 2004 Wimbledon
4) 2 GS, Lleyton Hewitt, 2004 US Open
5) 2 GS, Andy Roddick, 2005 Wimbledon
6) 8 GS, Andre Agassi, 2005 US Open
7) 0 GS, Marcos Baghdatis, 2006 Australian Open
8] 3 GS, Rafael Nadal, 2006 Wimbledon
9) 2 GS, Andy Roddick, 2006 US Open
10) 0 GS, Fernando Gonzalez, 2007 Australian Open
11) 3 GS, Rafael Nadal, 2007 Wimbledon
12) 1 GS, Novak Djokovic, 2007 US Open

Total Win OGS: 20
Avg Win OGS: 1.67

2 Grand Slam runner-ups
1) 3 GS, Rafael Nadal, 2006 French Open
2) 3 GS, Rafael Nadal, 2007 French Open

Total: 6 (OGS)
Avg OGS per Grand Slam Final match: 3.00

Overall OGS: 26
Avg Overall OGS: 1.86

 

[joeri888]

First of all I'd like to stress that you do a great job in collecting these statistics, and their pretty interesting. Don't stop if you get a lack of replies. I like it.
Roger Federer's opponents have won remarkably few grandslams. This quite easy to explain of course..Because Roger Federer won them all for a few years, there are very few players at the top, that have won loads. There's not a single other player active with more than 3 Grandslam titles these days. (Or did Kuerten win four, but you can hardly call him active now)

However, I don't think it's a good measure of the toughness of his opponents, though players like Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippousis, just aren't that great.


You made one small error by the way.. Roger's last GS win, at the USO 2007 was against Novak Djokovic, who, at the time, had won no GS instead of one.

Another idea would be to measure it with the opponents ranking on the ATP, just before or after the GS in which he reached the final.

 

[cucio]

You made one small error by the way.. Roger's last GS win, at the USO 2007 was against Novak Djokovic, who, at the time, had won no GS instead of one.

It doesn't seem like an error to me. For instance, at the time Fed lost his first RG final Nadal had only 1 slam, or 2 if you calculate it after the finals.

I think he means total historic slam count. That way, this player stat can improve after he retires if the opponents he defeated get to win slams themselves, proving he defeated future GS winners preventing for a while their rise to greatness.

 

[vincent_tennis]

link for federer GS final matches:
http://www.**********.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9590aaeceeaf69357d2ce13725123ff1&topic=8145.0

vince

 

[vincent_tennis]

link for federer GS final matches:
http://www.**********.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9590aaeceeaf69357d2ce13725123ff1&topic=8145.0

vince

 

[Zaragoza]

I think the rankings of his opponents when they played those finals would be more accurate than the number of Slams they won.
By your standards Agassi at 34 in the USO final would be a stronger opponent than Nadal in R.Garros.

 

[beedlejuice22]

it says in your list that Andy Roddick has won 2 grand slams. As far as i know, Roddick is and always will be a one slam wonder.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

it says in your list that Andy Roddick has won 2 grand slams. As far as i know, Roddick is and always will be a one slam wonder.

Yeah it's true, he's only won one. Kinda harsh to apply the dubious title, though - he was in 3 other GS finals, but lost.

 

[Challenger]

I think the rankings of his opponents when they played those finals would be more accurate than the number of Slams they won.
By your standards Agassi at 34 in the USO final would be a stronger opponent than Nadal in R.Garros.

I second your method. It's much more valid in this case.

 

[serve/and/volley]

I think the rankings of his opponents when they played those finals would be more accurate than the number of Slams they won.
By your standards Agassi at 34 in the USO final would be a stronger opponent than Nadal in R.Garros.

You want it? You got it!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195658

 

[serve/and/volley]

Also note that here is the version of this thread with the accurate stats as well as more ranking info:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195566

 

[dh003i]

This is interesting, but I think ultimately fails as a measure of the quality of opponents.

Let's say Fed choked in some of his GS wins over repeat-GS opponents, and lost, or played poorly and lost. So then, suddenly, he is more impressive, despite winning fewer slams, because his opponents won more GS because he lost? That is a strange way of looking at it.

This has been noted again and again, in response to those saying "Fed's competition is weak, they haven't won many GS". Well, the reason that's so is b/c Fed has won almost everything. The paradoxical outcome of that view would be Fed looks more impressive if he loses some more GS finals.