Straight set losses in slam finals for the Big 5 of the open era

abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
Borg: 1 out of 16 - vs Connors in USO 78 (tbf, Borg had a thumb injury in this match)
Sampras: 2 out of 18 - vs Safin in USO 00, vs Hewitt in USO 01
Federer: 1 out of 31 - vs Nadal in RG 08
Nadal: 1 out of 30 - vs Djoko in AO 19
Djokovic: 4 out of 32 - vs Fed in USO 07, Murray in Wim 13, Nadal in RG 20, Med in USO 21
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
Borg: 1 out of 16 - vs Connors in USO 78 (tbf, Borg had a thumb injury in this match)
Sampras: 2 out of 18 - vs Safin in USO 00, vs Hewitt in USO 01
Federer: 1 out of 31 - vs Nadal in RG 08
Nadal: 1 out of 32 - vs Djoko in AO 19
Djokovic: 4 out of 32 - vs Fed in USO 07, Murray in Wim 13, Nadal in RG 20, Med in USO 21
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Nadal's reached 30 GS finals.
 
What's important about this stat? You get a gold plate instead of a silver one for winning a set or two? 8-B

Straight set losses in Slams

Federer - 23
Sampras/Djokovic - 15
Nadal - 12
Borg - 4 (he quit when he was 25 and played way less matches than the others)
 
Will post these stats again FWIW (maybe a little)

bo5 Finals plus/minus straight sets wins and losses ratio
Sampras 21-3=18 47.8% SS wins, 6.8% SS losses (only 2 clay finals helped increase pct)
Borg 20-4=16 38.5% SS wins, SS 7.7% losses
Federer 21-4=17 38.88% SS wins,7.4% SS losses
Lendl 27-12=15 35% SS wins, 15.6%
Nadal 13-1=12 32.5% SS wins, 2.6% losses
Connors 17-7=10 35.4% SS wins,14.6% SS losses
Vilas 19-10=9 31.66% SS wins, 16.67% SS losses
Becker 13-6=7 29.5% S wins,13.6% SS losses
Nastase 16-10=6 28% SS wins, 17.5% SS losses
Djokovic 7-4=3 22% SS wins, 12.5% SS loses

Big 5 of Open ERA Bo5 Finals winning Pct (not including Davis Cup Team Finals)

Nadal 31-9 77.5%
Sampras 33-11 75%
Borg 38-14 73%
Djokovic 22-11 66.7%
Federer 35-19 64.15%

 
RS said:
It's a tossup between him and Nadal for the open era GOAT. I edge to Nadal by a tiny bit though.
Click to expand...

After the AO pretty sure that debate will get revisited again. Djokovic has serious momentum after his finish and will be interesting to see if he can keep that level as he reaches the age of 36 in May 2023. Ken Rosewall at 37 years and 2 months was the oldest GS winner in the Open Era so both likely have 1 to 2 years maximum left.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Nah, the neediest fanbase :p
Click to expand...
Vamos pack?
iu
 
abmk said:
Borg: 1 out of 16 - vs Connors in USO 78 (tbf, Borg had a thumb injury in this match)
Sampras: 2 out of 18 - vs Safin in USO 00, vs Hewitt in USO 01
Federer: 1 out of 31 - vs Nadal in RG 08
Nadal: 1 out of 30 - vs Djoko in AO 19
Djokovic: 4 out of 32 - vs Fed in USO 07, Murray in Wim 13, Nadal in RG 20, Med in USO 21
Click to expand...

Everyone had bad losses. But Fedal happened sooner, whereas many of Djoker happened in finals.
 
NoleFam said:
What's important about this stat? You get a gold plate instead of a silver one for winning a set or two? 8-B

Straight set losses in Slams

Federer - 23
Sampras/Djokovic - 15
Nadal - 12
Borg - 4 (he quit when he was 25 and played way less matches than the others)
Click to expand...
Ergo sports fandom is largely binary bunk. Almost no one cares about anything but the W. We should just rapidly simulate it all to save us some time, particularly due to omitting Nadal's timewasting, of course.
 
NoleFam said:
What's important about this stat? You get a gold plate instead of a silver one for winning a set or two? 8-B

Straight set losses in Slams

Federer - 23
Sampras/Djokovic - 15
Nadal - 12
Borg - 4 (he quit when he was 25 and played way less matches than the others)
Click to expand...
You enjoyed the AO 08 SF and AO 11 SF and RG 12 SF didn't you?
 
NoleFam said:
What's important about this stat? You get a gold plate instead of a silver one for winning a set or two? 8-B

Straight set losses in Slams

Federer - 23
Sampras/Djokovic - 15
Nadal - 12
Borg - 4 (he quit when he was 25 and played way less matches than the others)
Click to expand...

LOL, you cannot dismiss this stat outright

Djokovic has shown great mental resilience in several finals against Nadal (AO), Tsitsipas (FO) and Roger (Wimb) , winning from hopeless positions

But this stat shows on big stages Roger and Rafa have been able to put a fight no matter what.
 
Djokovic dropped more slams to lesser players which is still a valid point even if Djokovic makes up for it in other areas.
 
The_Order said:
Not only that but both Fed and Nadal have only lost 1 slam final to non big 3... Djok has a bucket load of them... 2x Murray, 2x Stan and Med...

Fed only to Delpo US09 and Nadal to Stan AO14 and only because he was injured...
Click to expand...
Wawrinka was ahead from the start. He would have likely won this otherwise even if closer.
 
Borg and Sampras don't make the cut for a fair comparison because the difference in finals is too big. As for the Big 3, Federer won 75 sets in 31 final, Nadal won 76 in 30, Djokovic won 71 in 32. Not a crushing difference but yep, Novak wasn't the toughest loser in Slam finals.
 
Sometimes, the bottom line is simply the bottom line.
I'll all for analysis as to the actual tennis being played (or looking back on it) but the parade of stats in a spirit of one-upsmanship (from whomever) does nothing positive for me.

Forget the people involved. Does a straight set win count more than a 5-set win? Does a straight loss count more against than a 5-set loss?
Vice versa?

Some of these statistics (as I find with a lot of metrics, including the vast array of stats for baseball) may be useful for predicting future scenarios, but they have (for me) no discernible value when discussing completed (or nearly completed) careers.
 
ElisRF said:
Wawrinka was ahead from the start. He would have likely won this otherwise even if closer.
Click to expand...

Wawrinka was up a set and a break before nadal got injured in the AO 14 final.
The game to break Nadal in the 2nd set at the start was a stunning one.

Given that and that he'd beaten 3 time defending champ Djoko at his prime in the QF, yes, he'd very likely have won even if Nadal wasn't injured.
 
ElisRF said:
Wawrinka was ahead from the start. He would have likely won this otherwise even if closer.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. If Raf got injured after the 1st set this year and lost to Med in straights we'd get the same nonsensical narrative.

The fact is, 2014 Nadal at that point had never even lost a set to Stan... there's no way losing the 1st set means he's losing the match.
 
abmk said:
Wawrinka was up a set and a break before nadal got injured in the AO 14 final.
The game to break Nadal in the 2nd set at the start was a stunning one.

Given that and that he'd beaten 3 time defending champ Djoko at his prime in the QF, yes, he'd very likely have won even if Nadal wasn't injured.
Click to expand...

Baggy was up a set and a break vs 06 Rog... Had Rog got injured in that match?

Given Baggy had beaten strong era legends Roddick, Ljubicic AND Nalbandian along the way, he'd very likely have won even if Rog didn't get injured...

Yes, that's how ridiculous your claim is...

How delusional to claim a player would have won a match anyway because he was up a set and a break....

Especially when said player had never won a set let alone beaten his opponent in 12 matches prior... utter lunacy
 
I think losing in five sets is more honorable than losing in straight sets. A team can hold their head high if they lose in 7 gams opposed to getting swept in 4. When the Reds swept the NY Yankees in the 1976 World Series their 2nd Baseman Joe Morgan said, "We want the 1927 Yankees next." He wouldn't have said that if it went 7 games. Morgan didn't say that after the Reds were taken to 7 games by the Red Sox in the 1975 World Series.

The fist Rocky film had Balboa lose but it was considered a great accomplishment for him to last the distance. A guy like Marvin Hagler can brag that in over 60 bouts he never had a stoppage loss. I won't even mention people like Kid Gavilan and Carlos Monzon that exceed well over 100 bouts.

When it comes to Slams Federer lost 5 out of 11 in five sets, Nadal 3 out of 8, Djokovic 1 out of 11, Borg 1 out of 5, and Sampras 0 out of 4.
 
Djokovic’s losses to Murray and Medvedev in slam finals are the sole reason he cannot be the greatest player ever for me.

If you’re truly the greatest player to pick up a racquet you deal with mugs like them in your sleep. They’re weaponless pushers who crumble when you show some guile.
 
The_Order said:
Rubbish. If Raf got injured after the 1st set this year and lost to Med in straights we'd get the same nonsensical narrative.

The fact is, 2014 Nadal at that point had never even lost a set to Stan... there's no way losing the 1st set means he's losing the match.
Click to expand...
I said likely not certainly. Anyway past matches aren't always a indicator. I wouldn't have completely ruled Nadal out you never can.
 
ElisRF said:
I said likely not certainly. Anyway past matches aren't always a indicator. I wouldn't have completely ruled Nadal out you never can.
Click to expand...

Even saying likely... based on what a set and a break? Past matches aren't always an indicator of who will win... but when it's 12 in a row without losing a set what's more likely is Nadal figures it out and ends up winning.
 
The_Order said:
Even saying likely... based on what a set and a break? Past matches aren't always an indicator of who will win... but when it's 12 in a row without losing a set what's more likely is Nadal figures it out and ends up winning.
Click to expand...
You commented Stan only won which is even more stretchy than likely.

Stan took his game leaps and bounds while Nadal was on a bit of a slide. So the H2H does still matter but Stan had got himself into a position he never had vs Nadal before.

I guess can see Nadal coming back into it and maybe underplayed the possibly of that a bit but I disagree if you think the injury was the sole reason.
 
ElisRF said:
You commented Stan only won which is even more stretchy than likely.

Stan took his game leaps and bounds while Nadal was on a bit of a slide. So the H2H does still matter but Stan had got himself into a position he never had vs Nadal before.

I guess can see Nadal coming back into it and maybe underplayed the possibly of that a bit but I disagree if you think the injury was the sole reason.
Click to expand...

Nadal was not on a slide, he disposed of Fed in the sf quite convincingly.

The fact is he injured himself in the warmup and it got progressively worse.. so he wasn't right from the start.

A healthy Nadal is very likely to win that match. Even take a look at 2012 AO Qf v Berdych where birdman got the first set and was hitting the ball incredibly well...

Even in 2014 tournament itself, Grigor got the 1st set and was playing well...
 
NoleFam said:
What's important about this stat? You get a gold plate instead of a silver one for winning a set or two? 8-B

Straight set losses in Slams

Federer - 23
Sampras/Djokovic - 15
Nadal - 12
Borg - 4 (he quit when he was 25 and played way less matches than the others)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really don’t get what this stat is supposed to measure. Novak has 21 slams and is the youngest ever to reach 20 and 21 slams (and maybe 22 as well?). Who cares what he lost if he won so much? Would he be a better player if he had lost before the finals?
 
The_Order said:
Nadal was not on a slide, he disposed of Fed in the sf quite convincingly.

The fact is he injured himself in the warmup and it got progressively worse.. so he wasn't right from the start.

A healthy Nadal is very likely to win that match. Even take a look at 2012 AO Qf v Berdych where birdman got the first set and was hitting the ball incredibly well...

Even in 2014 tournament itself, Grigor got the 1st set and was playing well...
Click to expand...
I remember Nadal looking ok in the first set I felt it was the 2nd were he started to limp around. Yep destroyed Fed but defo felt Berdych and 12 Fed were more a test than that and Nadal overall was being to look a bit shakier in general. Even against Berd it was generally closer beforehand so for me it would be more a mountain to climb.

Anyway I wouldn't argue too hard with you thinking Nadal winning even if I am not so sure on that. Just that it wouldn't be a lock.
 
The_Order said:
Nadal was not on a slide, he disposed of Fed in the sf quite convincingly.

The fact is he injured himself in the warmup and it got progressively worse.. so he wasn't right from the start.

A healthy Nadal is very likely to win that match. Even take a look at 2012 AO Qf v Berdych where birdman got the first set and was hitting the ball incredibly well...

Even in 2014 tournament itself, Grigor got the 1st set and was playing well...
Click to expand...
This is spot on- people who understand tennis realise that the match up means Stan would always struggle against fully fit Rafa.
 
Amritia said:
This is spot on- people who understand tennis realise that the match up means Stan would always struggle against fully fit Rafa.
Click to expand...
Of course generally. Don't agree it's anywhere lock in this instance.

If you say Nadal in a close battle that's pretty fair.
 
GabeT said:
Yeah, I really don’t get what this stat is supposed to measure. Novak has 21 slams and is the youngest ever to reach 20 and 21 slams (and maybe 22 as well?). Who cares what he lost if he won so much? Would he be a better player if he had lost before the finals?
Click to expand...
As funny as it is to see abmk dig out some anti-Djokovic stats you are of course correct.

I see no need to focus on Djokovic losing a few straight set slam finals as there's plenty of times Fedal have lost in straights earlier on. Ie take Nadal's awful patch in 2015- if he had scrambled through to the final in any slam that year he would have lost in straights to a good opponent. So can't really extrapolate much from this stat.
 
ElisRF said:
I remember Nadal looking ok in the first set I felt it was the 2nd were he started to limp around. Yep destroyed Fed but defo felt Berdych and 12 Fed were more a test than that and Nadal overall was being to look a bit shakier in general. Even against Berd it was generally closer beforehand so for me it would be more a mountain to climb.

Anyway I wouldn't argue too hard with you thinking Nadal winning even if I am not so sure on that. Just that it wouldn't be a lock.
Click to expand...

Not a lock, agreed. No match is a lock. But I think it's far more likely Nadal takes it than not.
 
Kralingen said:
Djokovic’s losses to Murray and Medvedev in slam finals are the sole reason he cannot be the greatest player ever for me.

If you’re truly the greatest player to pick up a racquet you deal with mugs like them in your sleep. They’re weaponless pushers who crumble when you show some guile.
Click to expand...

Lol....but his losses to Wawrinka are somehow ok? :rolleyes::cool:

Murray "mugged" it up against the Big 3 in 3 Bo5 finals (2 Slams, 1 Olympics) and 9 other big finals (1 WTF, 8 Masters). How " careless" of them all!

Try and get a grip Kralingen. You're anti-Murray diatribes are getting tiresome and telling us more about you than it does about him!!!
 
Last edited:
The_Order said:
Fed has earned his bronze medal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and neither of us mean that in a disrespectful sense at all.
I think both Nadal and Djokovic fans have great admiration for Federer and all he's achieved, and to be the third greatest player in history is also a massive compliment in a population of 7 billion plus.

However, there's a reason that Nadal and Djokovic fans now laugh at Fed fans desperate use of statistics- Fed's relevance to the GOAT debate was ended in 2022 sadly.
 
Amritia said:
Yeah, and neither of us mean that in a disrespectful sense at all.
I think both Nadal and Djokovic fans have great admiration for Federer and all he's achieved, and to be the third greatest player in history is also a massive compliment in a population of 7 billion plus.

However, there's a reason that Nadal and Djokovic fans now laugh at Fed fans desperate use of statistics- Fed's relevance to the GOAT debate was ended in 2022 sadly.
Click to expand...

It's not even statistics anymore... it's Rolex commercials...
 
Amritia said:
Or we could take your lead to stick around and start crying when Nadal's slam count gets overtaken by Nole/Alcaraz/future GOAT.
Click to expand...
Instead, you shall continue your quest for a purpose.

I wish you all the best in your search! (y)
 
Amritia said:
Yeah, and neither of us mean that in a disrespectful sense at all.
I think both Nadal and Djokovic fans have great admiration for Federer and all he's achieved, and to be the third greatest player in history is also a massive compliment in a population of 7 billion plus.

However, there's a reason that Nadal and Djokovic fans now laugh at Fed fans desperate use of statistics- Fed's relevance to the GOAT debate was ended in 2022 sadly.
Click to expand...
It's over 8 billion now I swear? :D

Don't think any count is accurate. Surely much more than the count says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lud
Ranking all 20 FIN opponents of Big 3
Replies
2
Views
733
TheSlicer
T
abmk
Top 5 at each slam for the top 5 of the open era
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
12K
RS
RS
Razer
Beating your rivals in Slams Many Years apart, must be a pleasing feeling to know you still have it in you....
Replies
6
Views
810
Razer
Razer
VAPORHEAD
Most Lopsided Grand Slam Losses of the Big 3
Replies
1
Views
464
The_Order
The_Order
abmk
Playing at close/similar/better level in a slam lost compared to slam won in the same year
Replies
2
Views
529
abmk
abmk
Back
Top