Most finals lost in a season?

Who has that record?

If Nadal loses to Murray in the Tokyo final and then in the final of Shanghai(possibly), he would have lost 8 finals already this year.

Would it not be 7 this year?

US Open
Wimbledon
Madrid
Rome
Miami
Indian Wells

What's the other one?
EDIT: Re-read the question, fair enough!

This would only add to Nadal's CV of records, ironically, not helping him one jot!

This is a solid question, actually!

I'm struggling to come up with anyone here. I'm going to go to sleep now, this has tired me out......... cheerio.

So is 7 the record?

Must be. I cannot think of another case when top players were consistently reaching the finals and one got beaten all the time.

The closest I can think of is 4/0 inflicted by Nadal to Roger in 2008 but it's fair to say it wasn't Roger's best year, physically.

In 2008, Federer reached 8 finals and won 4, so that's a 50% conversion rate in finals. Nadal has now reached 10 finals and won 3, so his conversion rate is 30% and that's more losses than Fed ever had in finals since he won his first grand slam. 7 Straight losses in finals is pretty bad and six of them have been to Djokovic but being handled a bagel by Murray in Japan is a real surprise, it should have been a more competitive match as Nadal did take the first set.

Curiously, Fed's reached 3 finals and won 1, so his conversion rate in finals is actually higher than Nadal's @ 33% so far this year.

With the form Novak's been in this year, I think Nadal should be given credit for reaching all those finals.

I agree, however people/history generally remembers the winners, not the losers. I certainly give him credit but as your post illustrates, you mentioned Djokovic first with Nadal second and that's the order it will remembered in if next year is similar to this year in a generation's time.

Apparently the record is 8 finals lost. In 1984 by Lendl.


1984 Philadelphia, U.S. Carpet $300,000 John McEnroe 6–3, 3–6, 6–3, 7–6
1984 Brussels Indoor, Belgium Carpet $250,000 John McEnroe 6–1, 6–3
1984 *Rotterdam, Netherlands Carpet $250,000 Jimmy Connors 0–6, 0–1 div'd-match cancelled (bomb threat)
1984 Forest Hills WCT, U.S. Clay 300,000 John McEnroe 6–4, 6–2
1984 US Open, New York City Hard $1,066,676 John McEnroe 6–3, 6–4, 6-1
1984 Sydney Indoor, Australia Hard (I) $225,000 Anders Järryd 6–3, 6–2, 6–4
1984 Tokyo Indoor, Japan Carpet $300,000 Jimmy Connors 6–4, 3–6, 6–0
1984 Volvo Masters, New York City Carpet John McEnroe 7–5, 6–0, 6–4

Why would you count Rotterdam as a loss? Lendl was thrashing Connors there.

Wikipedia did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics

eraldeen wrote:Apparently the record is 8 finals lost. In 1984 by Lendl.

Pre-Open Era is Laver-Rosewall.in 1967 (9 finals - Laver - 6, Rosewall - 3)

2 April Boston Pro[3] Final Indoor 6–4 , 6–0
9 April Paris Pro - Stade Coubertin[4] Final Indoor 6–0, 10-8, 10-8
28 May Los Angeles Pro Final Hard 6–2, 2–6, 7–5 --- Rosewall
4 June Pacific Coast Pro - Berkeley Final Hard 4–6, 6–3, 8–6 --- Rosewalll
9 June Madison Square Garden Pro, New York City Final Indoor 6–4, 6–4
25 June Newport Beach Pro Final 6–3, 6–3 --- Rosewall.
4 July World Pro - Oklahoma City Final 6–2, 3–6, 6–4
2 April Boston Pro[3] Final Indoor 6–4 , 6–0
9 April Paris Pro - Stade Coubertin[4] Final Indoor 6–0, 10-8, 10-8
28 May Los Angeles Pro Final Hard 6–2, 2–6, 7–5
4 June Pacific Coast Pro - Berkeley Final Hard 4–6, 6–3, 8–6
9 June Madison Square Garden Pro, New York City Final Indoor 6–4, 6–4
25 June Newport Beach Pro Final 6–3, 6–3
4 July World Pro - Oklahoma City Final 6–2, 3–6, 6–4
28 August Wimbledon World Pro Final Grass 6–2, 6–2, 12-10
28 October Wembley Pro - London Final Indoor wood 2–6, 6–1, 1–6, 8–6, 6–2


Rosewall lost 6 but Lendl lost 8.



Laver -Emerson in 1961 (13 finals, 8 - Laver, 5 Emerson)

1961-01-30 Australian Championships Final Grass Emerson 1-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4
1961-02-06 New Zealand Champs Final Grass Laver 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 3-6, 7-5
1961-02-20 Mexican Champs Final Emerson 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2
1961-02-26 Saint Andrews Invitational Final Grass Laver 4-6, 6-4, 6-3
1961-04-10 River Oaks Champs Final Clay Laver 7-5, 7-5, 1-6, 6-3
1961-04-29 British Hard Court Final Clay Emerson 8-6, 6-4, 6-0
1961-08-20 Kitzbuhel Alpenland Champs Final Clay Emerson 6-3, 6-3, 3-6, 0-6, 6-2
1961-08-27 Poertschach Final Clay Laver 2-6, 6-3, 7-5
1961-09-09 U.S. Championships Final Grass Emerson 7-5, 6-3, 6-2
1961-10-23 Queensland Hard Court Champs Final Clay Laver 7-5, 6-3
1961-10-30 Queensland Champs Final Grass Laver 4-6, 4-6, 6-0, 8-6, 6-3
1961-12-04 Victorian Champs Final Grass Laver 4-6, 8-6, 9-7, 6-3
1961-12-18 New South Wales Champ Final Grass Laver 8-6, 6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Laver-Emerson in 1962 (11 Finals, Laver - 7, Emerson - 4)

1962-01 Australian Championships Final Grass Laver 8-6, 0-6, 6-4, 6-4
1962-03-11 Montego Bay Champs Final Emerson 8-6, 7-5, 4-6, 3-6, 6-2
1962-03-19 Altamira Invitational, Caracas Final Hard Laver 9-7, 6-2, 6-0
1962-04-01 Caribe Hilton International, San Juan Final Emerson 7-5, 7-5
1962-04-08 Saint Petersburg Invitational Final Emerson 6-1, 6-4, 6-1
1962-04-09 River Oaks Champ, Texas Final Clay Laver 6-1, 7-5, 7-5
1962-05-07 Italian Champs Final Clay Laver 6-2, 1-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-1
1962-05-21 French Championships Final Clay Laver 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 9-7, 6-
1962-06-18 Queen's Club Champ Final Grass Laver 6-4, 7-5
1962-08-27 U.S. Championships Final Grass Laver 6-2, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4
1962-09-24 Pacific Southwest, Los Angeles Final Hard Emerson 16-14, 6-3


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver-Emerson_rivalry

I'm doubtful if you could count Rotterdam as a loss (or Wikipedia could), which at best is a draw. Unless you lose to an opponent, how can it be classed as a loss? In zero sum games, someone wins and someone loses, if no one losses, it isn't then put down as a loss, in those situations it's a draw! (Which I agree would look odd for tennis because you don't get draws) A very weird logic coming from Wikipedia, the numbers figures should be asterisked in ATP Performance Statistics and put down as 7 instead of 8. Anyone know how the ATP has it down?

Bottom line, the record is seven in the open era:


All of these guys lost 7 finals in a season:


Nastase in 1976

Lendl in 1984

Wilander in 1985

Nadal in 2011


Nadal can still own the record if he loses one more final this year.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6053583

Brian Gottfried has 10 in 1977.

Memphis F Bjorn Borg (SWE) N/A L 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 5-7
Los Angeles PSW
F Stan Smith (USA) N/A L 4-6, 6-2, 3-6
Denver F Bjorn Borg (SWE) N/A L 5-7, 2-6
RG F Guillermo Vilas (ARG) N/A L 0-6, 3-6, 0-6
Washington F Guillermo Vilas (ARG) N/A L 4-6, 5-7
Columbus F Guillermo Vilas (ARG) N/A L 2-6, 1-6
Los Angeles F Raul Ramirez (MEX) N/A L 5-7, 6-3, 4-6
San Francisco F Butch Walts (USA) N/A L 6-4, 3-6, 5-7
Maui F Jimmy Connors (USA) N/A L 2-6, 0-6
Paris F Corrado Barazzutti (ITA) N/A L 6-7, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 4-6

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Go/B/Brian-E-Gottfried.aspx?t=pa&y=1977&m=s&e=0#

There's only one player with a better record than Nadal this year.

Ask Murray if he'd swap his 4 titles so far for winning at RG, MC, and Barcelona and I think we all know the answer.

I'm no fan of Nadal, but I can't help compairing criticism of Nadal for losing finals this year with those who say Fed's H2H with Nadal is bad precisely because Fed was good enough to make it to (and lose) lots of finals vs. Nadal. Anyway, if you look at Nadal's record an evening up was likely to come. Until this year his record of converting finals into victories at all levels of tournaments was nothing short of incredible.

What this record shows is how vital match-ups are and how tight margins are at the top. You only need to be a little bit better than your opponent and, provided that the little bit that makes the difference is achievable consistently you'll have him nearly every time you play.

What we don't know is whether this year will be looked at as a turning point in Nadal's career, or whether he'll have another multi-slam winning year or two.

barrystar wrote:

What this record shows is how vital match-ups are and how tight margins are at the top. You only need to be a little bit better than your opponent and, provided that the little bit that makes the difference is achievable consistently you'll have him nearly every time you play.

That could be a good subject for a thread. But in fact those kinds of one way traffic results expose one thing: the fact that the player's success is based essentially on one factor or one weapon. If that "factor or weapon" can be handled by the opponent, then you have almost certainly a one sided result. If the player's game is based on a more varied game dependant itself on the form ofthe day for greater execution, we are more likely to see ups and downs in results like we can see between Federer v Djokovic or even v Nadal.

This reminds me very much when Mecir was beating the likes of Wilander, Sundstrom, Nystrom, Carlsson etc...and was asked how he coudl beat all those guys on clay...he said, "it's easy, they all have teh same game...if you can beat one you can beat them all".

Re Matchups.

I recall reading Rafa's interview, when some stupid person made an observation, something about Roger. His earnest reply was "they don't know what tennis is". While reading all the posts, I have felt that we need to wait to read autobiographies of the top players, and then our own assumptions, analyses, etc will be more enriched. I haven't yet read what RN or AM have said though.

barrystar wrote:There's only one player with a better record than Nadal this year.

Ask Murray if he'd swap his 4 titles so far for winning at RG, MC, and Barcelona and I think we all know the answer.

I'm no fan of Nadal, but I can't help compairing criticism of Nadal for losing finals this year with those who say Fed's H2H with Nadal is bad precisely because Fed was good enough to make it to (and lose) lots of finals vs. Nadal. Anyway, if you look at Nadal's record an evening up was likely to come. Until this year his record of converting finals into victories at all levels of tournaments was nothing short of incredible.

What this record shows is how vital match-ups are and how tight margins are at the top. You only need to be a little bit better than your opponent and, provided that the little bit that makes the difference is achievable consistently you'll have him nearly every time you play.

What we don't know is whether this year will be looked at as a turning point in Nadal's career, or whether he'll have another multi-slam winning year or two.

Very good and fair points as usual, 'barrystar'. The anti-Nadal Wummery on these boards, is no longer amusing - simply because I thought we'd all entered into a more mature debating forums, since the days of 606

Fact is, we can have a go a Rafa a much as we like. But considering Hard Courts are his worst surface, he doesn't do too bad

I wonder when we'll ever get a situation when everyone can appreciate the quality of the players currently competing in this magnificent game