Unbelievable Stat

[Lotto]

Since Federer won Wimbledon in 2003, there have been only two majors where neither Federer nor the conqueror of Federer has gone on to lift the trophy:


2003 Wimbledon- Federer
2003 US Open - Neither, David Nalbandian knocked Roger out and Andy Roddick won it
2004 Australian Open - Federer
2004 French Open - Neither, Guga beat Federer and Gaudio won it
2004 US Open - Federer
2005 Australian Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Safin
2005 French Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Nadal
2005 Wimbledon - Federer
2005 US Open - Federer
2006 Aussie Open - Federer
2006 French Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Nadal
2006 Wimbledon - Federer
2006 US Open - Federer
2007 Aussie Open - Federer
2007 French Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Nadal
2007 Wimbledon - Federer
2007 US Open - Federer
2008 Australian Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Djokovic
2008 French Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Nadal
2008 Wimbledon - Conqueror of Federer won - Nadal
2008 US Open - Federer
2009 Aussie Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Nadal
2009 French Open - Federer
2009 Wimbledon - Federer
2009 US Open - Conqueror of Federer won - Del Potro


I think that's scary....in 23 of the last 25 Grand Slams, either Roger Federer or the person who beat Roger Federer has won that grand slam.....that's a scary stat, no?

 

[Falloutjr]

Especially considering most of those times, the player who beat Federer won the tournament because it was in the finals, as opposed to beating him in the 2nd or 3rd round. Roger is truly the most dominant player in today's game.

 

[Blinkism]

You missed Wimbledon 2004

So, it's in 24 of the last 26 Grand Slams...

 

[P_Agony]

Yep. Federer's consistency at the majors is scary. Even when he losses, he's always the man to beat in every major (other than FO when he's the 2nd man to beat). Nobody comes even close to that consistency.

 

[edberg505]

Yep. Federer's consistency at the majors is scary. Even when he losses, he's always the man to beat in every major (other than FO when he's the 2nd man to beat). Nobody comes even close to that consistency.

Pssh, weak era! I just couldn't resist.

 

[kOaMaster]

it's even 22 of the last 22...

 

[canuckfan]

17 of 18 slam finals will do that. Will that streak ever be improved on? 4 and a half years with only ONE final missed (Aus 08 semi). Insanity.

 

[Blinkism]

Federer's consistency is to be feared more than any of his groundstrokes or his serve.

 

[Lotto]

You missed Wimbledon 2004

So, it's in 24 of the last 26 Grand Slams...

Indeed, I apologise.


His consistency is to be marvelled at. The question is, will we ever see someone with the same consistency as Roger? It's impossible to tell seeing as many thought Sampras' slam record would stand for a long time but still, his grand slam records and stats are ridiculous.

 

[8pNADAL]

this is why federer has no right to be compared with sampras, clearly federer has been in a laughable era (unless you think sampras wouldnt dominate this era in the same way, despite having the goat serve and goat netgame)

 

[Cantankersore]

this is why sampras has no right to be compared with federer, clearly sampras has been in a laughable era (unless you think federer wouldnt dominate this era in the same way, despite having the goat forehand and goat movement)

 

[Omega_7000]

this is why federer has no right to be compared with sampras, clearly federer has been in a laughable era (unless you think sampras wouldnt dominate this era in the same way, despite having the goat serve and goat netgame)

this is why sampras has no right to be compared with federer, clearly sampras has been in a laughable era (unless you think federer wouldnt dominate this era in the same way, despite having the goat forehand and goat movement)

 

[edberg505]

this is why federer has no right to be compared with sampras, clearly federer has been in a laughable era (unless you think sampras wouldnt dominate this era in the same way, despite having the goat serve and goat netgame)

Yup, there's just no way that Federer would take down powerhouses like Karol Kucera, Gilbert Schaller, Mark Philippoussis, Ramon Delgado, Magnus Norman, Jaime Yzaga, and Petr Korda in order to maintain that streak.

 

[icedevil0289]

His consistency is amazing.


on another note, it always boggles my mind when some nadal fans try to downplay fed's achievements. I mean 5 of Nadal's slams come from him beating fed. I guess they don't really count, because Nadal beat a player who only succeeded through a week era and extremely easy draws.

 

[lawrence]

this is why federer has no right to be compared with sampras, clearly federer has been in a laughable era (unless you think sampras wouldnt dominate this era in the same way, despite having the goat serve and goat netgame)

Fresh and green.

 

[Blinkism]

His consistency is amazing.


on another note, it always boggles my mind when nadal fans try to downplay fed's achievements. I mean 5 of Nadal's slams come from him beating fed. I guess they don't really count, because Nadal beat a player who only succeeded through a week era and extremely easy draws.

Exactly, right, icedevil!

Most Nadal fans use the Nadal-Federer H2H to tear down Fed's accomplishments, but it should be used as one of the great things that Nadal's accomplished.

I'm sure that's how Nadal sees it, anyways. I doubt he really believes Federer is any worse of a player just because he has a winning record on him. Nadal pulled off an amazing 12 months from last year to the beginning of this year, but put that in perspective of Fed since 2004 and it's really amazing.

Also, why is Sampras suddenly in this conversation? His level of consistency is worse than Federers's in terms of winning slams. Even Nadal has been more consistent. The fact that Sampras was year end #1 for so many years in a row, when Nadal had to hold 3/4 slams and the olympics just to be #1, is a shame. Nadal had years at #2 that would bring him up to #1 in the 90's...

Federer is the most consistent player of all time (props to Laver, Lendl and, to an extent, Borg) and Sampras is not even in the Top 5 of that list.

 

[ubermeyer]

Consecutive slam semis:

Federer- 22
Lendl- 10
A bunch of other people (including Sampras)- 3

GOAT discussion over. PERIOD!

 

[8pNADAL]

i never said nadal was in a strong era

 

[flyinghippos101]

i never said nadal was in a strong era

 

[8pNADAL]

10-year-olds....

 

[flyinghippos101]

10-year-olds....

16 year old, but close enough for you I guess. You get a smiley face for trying , don't be mad, thats good!

 

[Carsomyr]

10-year-olds....

Why are you complaining about your own demographic?

 

[Darth_Timmaayyy!!]

Why are you complaining about your own demographic?

Dont worry, he has been in plenty of threads of late, and his intelligence doesn't seem to get any better..

 

[Polvorin]

Why are you complaining about your own demographic?

demographic is a pretty big word...you might want to tone down the vocabulary a bit for the 8p-10 crowd

 

[TMF]

I'll will borrow the OP post and compare to Pete's did in the 90's at the same age, or exactly 10 years ago .

1) 2003 Wimbledon- Federer.........................................1993 SW19 -Pete
2) 2003 US Open - Roddick(David beat Roger).............1993 USO - Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) 2004 Australian Open - Federer.................................1994 AO - Pete
4) 2004 French Open - Gaudio(Guga beat Roger)..........1994 FO - Bruguera(Courier beat Pete)
5) 2004 Wimbledon-Federer..........................................1994 SW19 - Pete
6) 2004 US Open - Federer...........................................1994 USO - Agassi(Yzaga beat Pete)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) 2005 Australian Open - Safin.....................................1995 AO - Agassi
8) 2005 French Open - Nadal........................................1995 FO - Muster(Scaller beat Pete)
9) 2005 Wimbledon - Federer........................................1995 SW19 - Pete
10) 2005 US Open - Federer.........................................1995 USO - Pete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) 2006 Aussie Open - Federer.....................................1996 AO - Becker(Philippoussis beat Pete)
12) 2006 French Open - Nadal.......................................1996 FO - Kafelnikov
13) 2006 Wimbledon - Federer.......................................1996 SW19 - Krajicek
14) 2006 US Open - Federer..........................................1996 USO - Pete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15) 2007 Aussie Open - Federer.....................................1997 AO - Pete
16) 2007 French Open - Nadal.......................................1997 FO - Guga(Nornam beat Pete)
17) 2007 Wimbledon - Federer.......................................1997 SW19 - Pete
18) 2007 US Open - Federer..........................................1997 USO - Rafter(Korda beat Pete)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 2008 Australian Open - Djokovic.................................1998 AO - Korda(Kucera beat Pete)
20) 2008 French Open - Nadal.......................................1998 FO - Moya(Delgado beat Pete)
21) 2008 Wimbledon - Nadal..........................................1998 SW19 - Pete
22) 2008 US Open - Federer..........................................1998 USO - Rafter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23) 2009 Aussie Open - Nadal........................................1999 AO - Kafelnikov
24) 2009 French Open - Federer....................................1999 FO - Agassi(Medvedev beat Pete)
25) 2009 Wimbledon - Federer.......................................1999 SW19 - Pete
26) 2009 US Open - Del Potro.......................................1999 USO - Agassi(Pete didn't play)

During their prime, Roger won a total of 15 GS, Pete 11.
Highlighted in bold are the events where the other players won GS without having to beat Roger or Pete. So only 2 events where Roger was non factor, but Pete had 10 events. That's over 92% of the time the players had to beat Roger to win slams. However only over 61% of the time the players had to beat Pete.

Only one slamless player(Nalbandian) beat Roger, but Pete had 7 slamless players beat him.

 

[Lion King]

Indeed, I apologise.


His consistency is to be marvelled at. The question is, will we ever see someone with the same consistency as Roger? It's impossible to tell seeing as many thought Sampras' slam record would stand for a long time but still, his grand slam records and stats are ridiculous.

When Michael Johnson ran 200 meters in Atlanta in 1996 in 19.32 seconds(?), experts agreed that it this record would stand until 2050 at least. Well, Usain Bolt proved them wrong pretty quickly. So we might see another super dominant player soon. Although it seems a lot harder in tennis than in running: instead of one fast run, you need longevity and consistency. So I tend to agree with you.

 

[TMF]

When Michael Johnson ran 200 meters in Atlanta in 1996 in 19.32 seconds(?), experts agreed that it this record would stand until 2050 at least. Well, Usain Bolt proved them wrong pretty quickly. So we might see another super dominant player soon. Although it seems a lot harder in tennis than in running: instead of one fast run, you need longevity and consistency. So I tend to agree with you.

The problem is Johnson's record only comes from single event, but Roger's stretched for 6 years. Track and field records get broken frequently, but it's a far-fetched to have another tennis player to matches Roger's 6 years of consistency.

 

[Baikalic]

The problem is Johnson's record only comes from single event, but Roger's stretched for 6 years. Track and field records get broken frequently, but it's a far-fetched to have another tennis player to matches Roger's 6 years of consistency.

Yes, it looks like Lion King already brought this up at the end of his post, and I also agree.