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 compare 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 (OGS). 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) 1 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) 1 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: 22
Avg Win OGS: 1.83

The distribution of the Win OGS is:
0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 8
Hence the Median OGS is: 1

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

Total Runner-up OGS: 6 (OGS)
Avg Runner-up OGS: 3.00
Median Runner-up OGS: 3

Overall OGS: 28
Avg Overall OGS: 2.00

Federer's top rival in Grand Slam finals is Rafael Nadal:

Federer v. Nadal (GS finals): 2-2
Federer v. Nadal (overall): 6-9

 

[serve/and/volley]

Here is the ranking of the Avg Win OGS, i.e. the average OGS in each of their Grand Slam finals wins:

1. Jimmy Connors: 7.63
2. John McEnroe: 7.14
3. Stefan Edberg: 6.33
4. Rod Laver: 5.27
5. Boris Becker: 5.17
6. Ivan Lendl: 4.25
7. Mats Wilander: 4.14
8. Bjorn Borg: 4.00
9. Pete Sampras: 3.43
10. Roy Emerson: 3.25
11. Andre Agassi: 2.25
12. Roger Federer: 1.83

And the Median Win OGS:

1. Jimmy Connors: 8
1. John McEnroe: 8
2. Boris Becker: 7
3. Ivan Lendl: 6.5
4. Stefan Edberg: 6
5. Bjorn Borg: 4
5. Mats Wilander: 4
6. Rod Laver: 3
7. Roy Emerson: 2
8. Pete Sampras: 1.5
9. Roger Federer: 1
10. Andre Agassi: 0.5

 

[serve/and/volley]

Here is the ranking of their Avg Runners-up OGS, i.e. the average OGS in each of their Grand Slam finals losses:

1. Roy Emerson: 11.00
2. Andre Agassi: 10.43
3. John McEnroe: 8.75
4. Bjorn Borg: 7.40
5. Boris Becker: 6.75
6. Ivan Lendl: 6.73
7. Jimmy Connors: 6.29
8. Mats Wilander: 5.75
9. Rod Laver: 5.33
10. Stefan Edberg: 4.60
11. Pete Sampras: 4.50
12. Roger Federer: 3.00

And their Median Runner-up OGS:

1. Andre Agassi: 14
2. Roy Emerson: 11
3. John McEnroe: 8
4. Bjorn Borg: 7
4. Jimmy Connors: 7
4. Ivan Lendl: 7
4. Mats Wilander: 7
5. Boris Becker: 6
6. Rod Laver: 5.5
7. Stefan Edberg: 4
7. Pete Sampras: 4
8. Roger Federer: 3

 

[serve/and/volley]

Here is the ranking of their Avg Overall OGS, i.e. the avg OGS in all of their Grand Slam finals matches:

1. John McEnroe: 7.73
2. Jimmy Connors: 7.00
3. Stefan Edberg: 6.82
4. Andre Agassi: 6.07
5. Boris Becker: 5.80
6. Ivan Lendl: 5.68
7. Rod Laver: 5.29
8. Bjorn Borg: 5.06
9. Roy Emerson: 4.80
10. Mats Wilander: 4.73
11. Pete Sampras: 3.67
12. Roger Federer: 2.00

 

[serve/and/volley]

How would you interpret these numbers?

 

[Fumoffu]

Federer beat people when the field was fairly even, and now there's a seemingly un-fillable gap?

 

[(FEDERER)vs(NADAL)]

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

he beat pete sampras at the wimbledon final one year didn't he?

 

[counter_puncher]

he beat pete sampras at the wimbledon final one year didn't he?

what the f*ck?

 

[kingdaddy41788]

he beat pete sampras at the Wimbledon final one year didn't he?

Beat him at Wimbledon (quarters?) but it wasn't a final. VERY important piece of information.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Beat him at Wimbledon (quarters?) but it wasn't a final. VERY important piece of information.

Wasn't it Round of 16?

 

[Sentinel]

Beat him at Wimbledon (quarters?) but it wasn't a final. VERY important piece of information.

2001 Wimbledon.

Anyway, its not really Fed's fault if he has to face a low ranked player in the finals, or someone else knocked out a GS winner in an earlier round -- it skews the data.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Wasn't it Round of 16?

Yes, that was 2001 and lost to Tim Henmen in the quarterfinals. The following year he went out to Mario Ancic in the 1st round, who was also the last man to beat him on grass.

 

[edmondsm]

These numbers are interesting but with a few variables. For instance Edberg benefits from beating Sampras early in his career before he had become the Sampras we know. McEnroe and Conners, although unarguably worse players then Sampras, end up higher on the list because they (for some reason) owned Borg at the USO. But I still like the concept.

 

[prosealster]

1: he is so dominant that no one else except nads is winning GSs, hence makes his average score look bad

2: his competitions are not done yet hence the number will look very different if we look again in 10 yrs time

 

[serve/and/volley]

These numbers are interesting but with a few variables. For instance Edberg benefits from beating Sampras early in his career before he had become the Sampras we know. McEnroe and Conners, although unarguably worse players then Sampras, end up higher on the list because they (for some reason) owned Borg at the USO. But I still like the concept.

I wouldn't say Connors and McEnroe owned Borg. Here is their head-to-head in Grand Slam finals:

Borg vs. Connors: 2-2
Borg vs. McEnroe: 1-3

The Borg, Connors, McEnroe triumvirate is actually quite competitive. Here are their overall head-to-head stats:

Borg vs. Connors: 13-8
Borg vs. McEnroe: 7-7
McEnroe vs. Connors: 20-14

 

[Lionheart]

2001 Wimbledon.

Anyway, its not really Fed's fault if he has to face a low ranked player in the finals, or someone else knocked out a GS winner in an earlier round -- it skews the data.

Agreed. And also, it´s not his fault that he is winning almost everything, where will you find players with lots of grand slams for him to play if he is winning them all?

 

[scineram]

Since when has Roddick two majors?

 

[serve/and/volley]

Since when has Roddick two majors?

Thanks for catching the error. I have re-calculated all of the numbers to reflect that.

 

[Vision84]

Kind of interesting but can't really draw any conclusions.

Agassi had to deal with Sampras making him look good and Sampras bad in the results.

Federer wins all the grand slams so everyone he plays hasn't won one.

 

[illkhiboy]

So if Federer lost a couple of those finals, wouldn't his stats look more impressive if he beat the same opponents later who he had lost to earlier? Look no further than Federer's utter dominance from '04-'07 to declare him the one of the five greatest ever.

 

[serve/and/volley]

So if Federer lost a couple of those finals, wouldn't his stats look more impressive if he beat the same opponents later who he had lost to earlier? Look no further than Federer's utter dominance from '04-'07 to declare him the one of the five greatest ever.

Another way to measure Grand Slam difficulty is to look at the rankings of their opponents:

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

You will be pleased to find Federer at the top of one of the categories.