Serena vs Federer when they reach the semifinals of a Grand Slam

[McEnroeisanartist]

I came across this statistic today, when Serena Williams reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam, she wins it 70.8% of the time. This is impressive when you consider that Federer is at 50% of time.

Since losing the 2008 Wimbledon final to her sister, when Serena reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam she has won it 9 out of 11 times.

Since winning the 2009 Wimbledon final, when Federer reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam, he has won it 2 out of 11 times.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'm not a Serena fan but she is one of the best big-match players of all time.

Her record in slam finals is 17-4, I believe.

 

[scotus]

I bet Fed's stats were better a few years back. As he got older, Djokovic and Murray began to get the better of him, and that's in addition to Nadal who has been dominating him in most finals.

Serena, on the other hand, has been lucky because the competition isn't catching up to her age. She is old enough to contemplate retirement, but her current competition is probably easier than the field she faced 5 to 10 years ago.

 

[Steve0904]

I bet Fed's stats were better a few years back. As he got older, Djokovic and Murray began to get the better of him, and that's in addition to Nadal who has been dominating him in most finals.

Serena, on the other hand, has been lucky because the competition isn't catching up to her age. She is old enough to contemplate retirement, but her current competition is probably easier than the field she faced 5 to 10 years ago.

Fed's conversion rate from AO 2003 to USO 2010 was 16 for 26 which is 61.5%

And in his absolute best years 2004-2007 he was 11 for 15 which is 73.3%.

This just means that Federer is ultra consistent, but hasn't cashed in when he's gotten up in age which is nothing to be ashamed of. I'd say Sampras's numbers are better than Fed's in this scenario, but that's just an educated guess. As you said, there are better players out there than Federer these days, but the same is not true for Serena. She is still the best in what looks like a weak field tbh.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I came across this statistic today, when Serena Williams reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam, she wins it 70.8% of the time. This is impressive when you consider that Federer is at 50% of time.

Since losing the 2008 Wimbledon final to her sister, when Serena reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam she has won it 9 out of 11 times.

Since winning the 2009 Wimbledon final, when Federer reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam, he has won it 2 out of 11 times.

Fascinating. Some will argue that Federer's competition prevented him from comparable results, but another can argue that like Serena, it is Federer's job to dissect the opponents' games to gain an advantage, no matter how long that takes.

In any case, fascinating comparison.

 

[cknobman]

Serena is just that much better than her competition (which she has no control over).

That being said her competition has not been all that great. There have been a few great players in the field but they still pale in comparison to Serena.

 

[Warmaster]

In this case it also means Serena is/was more prone to an 'early' upset. I'd still prefer to lose a SF.

 

[Fiji]

I bet Fed's stats were better a few years back. As he got older, Djokovic and Murray began to get the better of him, and that's in addition to Nadal who has been dominating him in most finals.

Serena, on the other hand, has been lucky because the competition isn't catching up to her age. She is old enough to contemplate retirement, but her current competition is probably easier than the field she faced 5 to 10 years ago.

I concur.....

 

[underground]

I came across this statistic today, when Serena Williams reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam, she wins it 70.8% of the time. This is impressive when you consider that Federer is at 50% of time.

Since losing the 2008 Wimbledon final to her sister, when Serena reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam she has won it 9 out of 11 times.

Since winning the 2009 Wimbledon final, when Federer reaches the semifinals of a Grand Slam, he has won it 2 out of 11 times.

Stop trying to make stats posts when it's wrong anyway. Federer's won 3 SFs since Wimbledon 2009: AO2010, FO2011 and Wimbledon2012

 

[TERRASTAR18]

I bet Fed's stats were better a few years back. As he got older, Djokovic and Murray began to get the better of him, and that's in addition to Nadal who has been dominating him in most finals.

Serena, on the other hand, has been lucky because the competition isn't catching up to her age. She is old enough to contemplate retirement, but her current competition is probably easier than the field she faced 5 to 10 years ago.

Fed's conversion rate from AO 2003 to USO 2010 was 16 for 26 which is 61.5%

And in his absolute best years 2004-2007 he was 11 for 15 which is 73.3%.

This just means that Federer is ultra consistent, but hasn't cashed in when he's gotten up in age which is nothing to be ashamed of. I'd say Sampras's numbers are better than Fed's in this scenario, but that's just an educated guess. As you said, there are better players out there than Federer these days, but the same is not true for Serena. She is still the best in what looks like a weak field tbh.

for the majority of her career she has had the stronger field. just because serena has had a weak field doesn't mean it is relevant to the conversation especially when fed was losing to not big 4 players. also it might be skewed win regards to 2007-2009 when you consider serena's injuries.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Serena is just that much better than her competition (which she has no control over).

That being said her competition has not been all that great. There have been a few great players in the field but they still pale in comparison to Serena.

same holds true for fed.

 

[TMF]

The depth and level of competition in the ATP is much greater than the WTA. It's takes more effort/skills for the men to win slams. Even a unretired Clijsters who became a mom went on to win 3 slams, including beating Serena and Venus. It's next to impossible for an ATP player coming out of retirement and dominate the tour.

Nadal 13 slams is worth more than Serena 17 slams.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

In this case it also means Serena is/was more prone to an 'early' upset. I'd still prefer to lose a SF.

she only lost 1st round once.....fed has been losing for the most part to either semifinalists, finalists or that year's champion. even in losses to craybas,batoli,capriati she either lost to player who could won, got beaten by the winner, or beaten by the finalist. she rarely loses to someone who doesn't have a claim to being top 5 in the tourney.

and fed has had worse losses to players who have done nothing in the tourney or after like melzer.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Nadal 13 slams is worth more than Serena 17 slams.

I disagree because I rank Nadal as the 6th greatest male player of all time, and Serena as the 4th greatest female player.

It's true though that Federer's 17 slams are worth more than Serena's 17 slams. The former are enough to make Federer the GOAT, whereas the latter still place Serena behind a number of women.

 

[TMF]

I disagree because I rank Nadal as the 6th greatest male player of all time, and Serena as the 4th greatest female player.

It's true though that Federer's 17 slams are worth more than Serena's 17 slams. The former are enough to make Federer the GOAT, whereas the latter still place Serena behind a number of women.

My point is not about Nadal ranked higher than Serena in their respective tour, but comparing slam title between the two tour is not an apples to apples. The ATP slam is worth more than the WTA slam, and Nadal at 13 I put more weight than Serena at 17.

Federer 17 is worth more than Graf 22.

 

[laughingcavalier]

but her current competition is probably easier than the field she faced 5 to 10 years ago.[/QUOTE]



... In a sense.... Having Henin and Clijsters retire in one fell swoop certainly made things somewhat easier for her as they've both had wins over her in slams.

... One year Henin beat Serena in the quarters in 3 consecutive slams.

 

[Warmaster]

she only lost 1st round once.....fed has been losing for the most part to either semifinalists, finalists or that year's champion. even in losses to craybas,batoli,capriati she either lost to player who could won, got beaten by the winner, or beaten by the finalist. she rarely loses to someone who doesn't have a claim to being top 5 in the tourney.

and fed has had worse losses to players who have done nothing in the tourney or after like melzer.

Early in this case obviously refers to losing before the SF.

Serena has a lot of QF losses even in her prime. Why would that be better than a SF loss?

 

[cc0509]

My point is not about Nadal ranked higher than Serena in their respective tour, but comparing slam title between the two tour is not an apples to apples. The ATP slam is worth more than the WTA slam, and Nadal at 13 I put more weight than Serena at 17.

Federer 17 is worth more than Graf 22.

That is just plain dumb, I am sorry.

You can't devalue the women's slams because they weren't played on the men's tour. Serena, Graf, etc. did what they had to do within their own organization and rules but it does not make their slams less valuable, just different. Apples are just as good as oranges, they are different.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Early in this case obviously refers to losing before the SF.

Serena has a lot of QF losses even in her prime. Why would that be better than a SF loss?

the ppl she played obviously.....if they went on to win the title and or went on to future success- ana,maria, bartoli, stosur, kuzzy,etc. rarely does serena have a bad loss. even the razzone loss was understandable. fed has some bad losses. my point is there is no shame losing to the winner of a tournament even in the third round because no oe obviously beat them but if you are fed losing to melzer and that bad loss at wimbly last year. there is no excuse and i'm a fan of both fed and ree.

 

[cknobman]

same holds true for fed.

Lets agree to disagree.

Serena's competition largely dropped of the face of the earth in 2008 and since then its been a free for all on tour when Serena loses.

Serena also was hardly playing the tour in 04,05,06.

 

[cknobman]

the ppl she played obviously.....if they went on to win the title and or went on to future success- ana,maria, bartoli, stosur, kuzzy,etc. rarely does serena have a bad loss. even the razzone loss was understandable. fed has some bad losses. my point is there is no shame losing to the winner of a tournament even in the third round because no oe obviously beat them but if you are fed losing to melzer and that bad loss at wimbly last year. there is no excuse and i'm a fan of both fed and ree.

LOL you are in fantasy land if you think the loss to Bartoli was not a bad loss. Bartoli should never have won Wimbledon because she SHOULD HAVE LOST TO SERENA!!

 

[Warmaster]

the ppl she played obviously.....if they went on to win the title and or went on to future success- ana,maria, bartoli, stosur, kuzzy,etc. rarely does serena have a bad loss. even the razzone loss was understandable. fed has some bad losses. my point is there is no shame losing to the winner of a tournament even in the third round because no oe obviously beat them but if you are fed losing to melzer and that bad loss at wimbly last year. there is no excuse and i'm a fan of both fed and ree.

This is not what the discussion was about in the first place.

Besides, Federer never lost against Melzer in a major. Djokovic did.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

LOL you are in fantasy land if you think the loss to Bartoli was not a bad loss. Bartoli should never have won Wimbledon because she SHOULD HAVE LOST TO SERENA!!

the same could be said about del po.......or berdych or tsonga especially on account to never winning a slam.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

This is not what the discussion was about in the first place.

Besides, Federer never lost against Melzer in a major. Djokovic did.

not melzer, i meant robredo, i was confusing melzer with the guy who beat fed at wimbly, i think melzer beat that guy in the next round.

i changed the subject to add that the draw matters, if you lose in the 1strd to the eventual champion in a tough match, that shows more quality than going to say the 4th round on a cakewalk.

 

[JanowiczJ]

The depth and level of competition in the ATP is much greater than the WTA. It's takes more effort/skills for the men to win slams. Even a unretired Clijsters who became a mom went on to win 3 slams, including beating Serena and Venus. It's next to impossible for an ATP player coming out of retirement and dominate the tour.

Nadal 13 slams is worth more than Serena 17 slams.

This and this. They can't be compared, Serena is a great athlete in her sport and Federer as well. But if you want to compare them you'll end up reading posts like the above, telling you the truth.

WTA tour is much easier than the ATP Tour.

 

[NADALRECORD]

The only SF Nadal lost:
2009 US Open
2008 US Open
2008 AU Open
Insane.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I disagree because I rank Nadal as the 6th greatest male player of all time, and Serena as the 4th greatest female player.

It's true though that Federer's 17 slams are worth more than Serena's 17 slams. The former are enough to make Federer the GOAT, whereas the latter still place Serena behind a number of women.

Fed, Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Gonzales your top 5?
Graf, Evert, Navratilova your top 3?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Nadal 13 slams is worth more than Serena 17 slams.

^ Unsubstantiated, sexist BS.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

^ Unsubstantiated, sexist BS.

Is it actually sexist or is it just ''comparative''. He probably wouldn't be saying it if the top Slam count in the women's game was 15 instead of 24. There may or may not be some sexism there, I'm just pointing out that there are other feasible angles from which they may be coming from.

 

[Vanhool]

LOL you are in fantasy land if you think the loss to Bartoli was not a bad loss. Bartoli should never have won Wimbledon because she SHOULD HAVE LOST TO SERENA!!

Bartoli didn't win the year she beat Serena. She beat Serena in the 4th round the year Serena came back from the pulmonary embolism. That was the Wimbledon where Serena wept after her first round win because she thought she'd never play again.

 

[90's Clay]

Shows that mental toughness of steel from Fed.

Fed is probably the greatest ever at beating the guys hes supposed to steamroll in the first week, in terms of playing those top rivals/threats, he has to be one of the worst as far as all time elites are concerned.

If I could get a dollar for every big match (in masters or Slams in deep rounds) that Fed has blown Id be a millionaire

 

[BHud]

Another case of torture (see signature)! You must consider a player's body of work over time...not just isolated statistics that make a case for your point of view!!!!!

 

[Incognito]

The depth and level of competition in the ATP is much greater than the WTA. It's takes more effort/skills for the men to win slams. Even a unretired Clijsters who became a mom went on to win 3 slams, including beating Serena and Venus. It's next to impossible for an ATP player coming out of retirement and dominate the tour.

Nadal 13 slams is worth more than Serena 17 slams.

Let's forget that Serena competed in the deepest era of womens tennis when she won 4 in a row in 2002-2003.

What I hate most are misogynist pigs who go full r*tar* by givng women's achievements less value.

 

[90's Clay]

I wouldn't say the men's game at the moment is that much better than the women's at the moment.

A few years ago yes, but they got NO young guys stepping up, Nadal has declined severely, Fed is old, Murray is still a mess. Wawrinka at an older tennis age already is having more success now than he did in what should have been his prime/peak years. Nole is really the only legit player at the moment IMO as far as all surfaces go.

How is that much stronger than the WTA At the moment? And Serena played in arguably the best WTA Field ever back in the 2000's. I don't think you can say Fed has ever played in the best men's field ever

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Is it actually sexist or is it just ''comparative''. He probably wouldn't be saying it if the top Slam count in the women's game was 15 instead of 24. There may or may not be some sexism there, I'm just pointing out that there are other feasible angles from which they may be coming from.

nadal won most of his slams on clay with no competition and a career slam on the slowest courts in history. not on the level of 24.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

I wouldn't say the men's game at the moment is that much better than the women's at the moment.

A few years ago yes, but they got NO young guys stepping up, Nadal has declined severely, Fed is old, Murray is still a mess. Wawrinka at an older tennis age already is having more success now than he did in what should have been his prime/peak years. Nole is really the only legit player at the moment IMO as far as all surfaces go.

How is that much stronger than the WTA At the moment? And Serena played in arguably the best WTA Field ever back in the 2000's. I don't think you can say Fed has ever played in the best men's field ever

for once i agree with you.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Let's forget that Serena competed in the deepest era of womens tennis when she won 4 in a row in 2002-2003.

What I hate most are misogynist pigs who go full r*tar* by givng women's achievements less value.

preach.............

 

[TERRASTAR18]

This and this. They can't be compared, Serena is a great athlete in her sport and Federer as well. But if you want to compare them you'll end up reading posts like the above, telling you the truth.

WTA tour is much easier than the ATP Tour.

right now it is but not from 200-2010

 

[TMF]

This and this. They can't be compared, Serena is a great athlete in her sport and Federer as well. But if you want to compare them you'll end up reading posts like the above, telling you the truth.

WTA tour is much easier than the ATP Tour.

Yep. You can't compare because men's tennis is more brutal, especially when they have to play 5 sets format, not 3. The standard are higher and no way to consider both slam titles are the same.

 

[Midaso240]

Yep. You can't compare because men's tennis is more brutal, especially when they have to play 5 sets format, not 3. The standard are higher and no way to consider both slam titles are the same.

A grand slam is a grand slam

 

[Phoenix1983]

Fed, Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Gonzales your top 5?
Graf, Evert, Navratilova your top 3?

Those are the correct names, yes.

Although I put Gonzales before Rosewall, and Navratilova ahead of Evert.

 

[NADALRECORD]

nadal won most of his slams on clay with no competition and a career slam on the slowest courts in history. not on the level of 24.

2011 Roland Garros is the fastest Roland Garros in history. Also, players were not as fit in the 1980s/90s, and baseline tennis has never been more consistent as it is now. Nadal is in the toughest clay era ever. Nadal is so athletic compared to 1990s players, that he would never have lost a RG in the 1990s even playing his worst. Ferrer would have won a bunch of Roland Garros titles in the 1990s.