Statistics: Slam History

I was bored and decided to create a full table of Slam finalists and winners of the Open Era. I know that links are disabled for newcomers, but I am hardly going to bite.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlJH_wU1qqN4dExfVlE5S3JYZnFMdmUzbW9qSXJFanc

According to my stats, 97 players have made it to at least one final, 51 players have won at least one slam, 28 players have won more than one slam, 4 players have won one of each slam and only 1 player has achieved the Grand Slam.

Any mistakes, do let me know!

Welcome to 606v2 Seifer!

Very nice table! . Could you please explain what 'Win Pts' means?

I can see that 'Avg Pts' is roughly 'Win Pts' / Years? It could be titles, but Sampras has 64 titles, as does Borg (as per ATP site).



PS: I have converted your URL to a HTTP link.

PPS: Should Djokovic be highlighted in yellow, till RG 2012 winner is known? And if he wins FO 2012, it can be red after that.

He has used Win pts = 4 x (slam win total) + (slam runner up total), and then ranked the players with it. Only Roddick and Kriek are swapped in rank as a result, where a player with less slam wins is ranked higher.

As it stands both Roche and Murray have the most number of slam final appearances without winning.

Good stuff - it's nice to see who the true one-hit wonders are and who were a bit more consistent at the later stages.

To the OP - don't spoil the credit you should get for this by over-doing the anti-nadal stuff on other posts. I'm not a fan of his, like several on here, but there are ways and ways of saying it!

A good piece of work on the stats and very much to be welcomed as a useful source for the forum as a whole.

But - as barrystar points out - you might want to think about how you express yourself on player-related posts.

Speak your mind, sure. But when the subject concerned is a winner of 10 Slams, there are perhaps better ways to get the message across than by such dismissive and disdainful comment. And a side benefit would be that you might then avoid needlessly alienating whole sections of the membership in the process.

Welcome to the forum and good to see some stats work, I know laverfan will love pouring through the numbers

I also agree with the sentiments of barry and lags...if you want to call Nadal 1-dimensional, etc, then fair enough but a) please explain why you think he is b) dont expect it to endear you to the forum at large. This forum has members of all shades (fan-wise) and thats great, and we'll all take a humourous dig at other players from time to time but lets not get churlish about multi-slammers who are going to go down as legends of the game no matter what we write on here. Thats not to say we all have to like players, or their styles of play - I know many think Rafa's game is boring...fair enough...but surely his most ardent critic knows that what he does is highly effective, and to be fair not 1-dimensional for it my belief that you cannot win 10 majors/20 Masters with such a game over the course of 7-8 seasons.

Seifer Almasy, your criticism of Senor Rafael Nadal is one-dimensional.

Nore Staat wrote:He has used Win pts = 4 x (slam win total) + (slam runner up total), and then ranked the players with it. Only Roddick and Kriek are swapped in rank as a result, where a player with less slam wins is ranked higher.

As it stands both Roche and Murray have the most number of slam final appearances without winning.

Thanks, NS.

I am sorry but I am not going back on my criticism of Nadal. I admire his athleticism and strength... but I do not admire that kind of game across all surfaces and they have killed serve and volley on grass. It just isn't right. I think Nadal's brute force game is 1 dimensional, and I can appreciate a Federer far more for what he has achieved, even with the slower courts. I like to see an attacking game based on ability and genius triumph over a baseline defender who can get every ball because of what they have done to the courts. Clay is the place for that; not everywhere. I'd like to see the Tsongas of the world winning Wimbledon titles, not Nadals.

The main reason I do not like Nadal however, is his time wasting antics, gamesmanship, fake injury time outs, fist pumping practically every point, arrogance, lack of respect to fellow pros when losing, and recently throwing his toys out of the pram because he doesn't like the colour blue ( ). I think he is a poor ambassador to the sport and a rather nasty person in general on the court.

Back to the stats... Djokovic is not getting a yellow hahaha ! He has to earn that green! The points system is real simple, win-points are 4 points for a slam title, 1 point for a slam runner-up.

Seifer - I think that's more useful than the original throw-away one-liner, and gives a lot more insight into why you feel the way you do. In that sense I personally have no quibble with you expressing your views and the reasons behind them.

Obviously, folk who have quite different opinions may come on here to debate with you, and no doubt quite robustly - but hopefully in a civilized, mature & rational manner too. And of course that's the whole point of the forum's existence in the first place.

That's an improvement on a one-liner as pretty much the first post from an unnanounced new-comer.

Well, it's an internet forum and we have freedom of speech so let the discussions commence.

I agree with you that I'd like to see the Tsongas of this world beating the Nadal's of this world at Wimbledon.

Seifer Almasy wrote:... and recently throwing his toys out of the pram because he doesn't like the colour blue ( ).

You did see the apology from Tiriac about the court conditions, I presume.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Back to the stats... Djokovic is not getting a yellow hahaha ! He has to earn that green! The points system is real simple, win-points are 4 points for a slam title, 1 point for a slam runner-up.

He will earn both Green and Red, if he wins RG 2012, unless you reserve the Red for CYGS.

barrystar wrote:I agree with you that I'd like to see the Tsongas of this world beating the Nadal's of this world at Wimbledon.

Did anyone watch the Nadal-Berdych match. from 4-2 to losing it 7-5. And Nadal was very aggressive getting his break back at 4-2, with some net play in the mix.

We can also discuss Berdy's lack of imagination when Nadal was 3m behind the baseline and Berdy was trying to hit it harder rather than play a good set of droppers.

@Seifer - Are you watching Tsonga-Djokovic? You still think Tsonga is capable of winning a slam?

I think Tsonga can win a slam, yes. Definitely. It would be really awful if the man ended his career without one. This is clay though and he certainly isn't going to win the French Open.

Anyone who can make a slam final and beat the big man (Fed) at Wimbledon is capable.

laverfan wrote:

barrystar wrote:I agree with you that I'd like to see the Tsongas of this world beating the Nadal's of this world at Wimbledon.

Did anyone watch the Nadal-Berdych match. from 4-2 to losing it 7-5. And Nadal was very aggressive getting his break back at 4-2, with some net play in the mix.

We can also discuss Berdy's lack of imagination when Nadal was 3m behind the baseline and Berdy was trying to hit it harder rather than play a good set of droppers.

Nadal is not a mug, I just am not a fan of his. I know he comes to the net, but usually to finish a point off, very rarely have I seen him use it as an aggressive tactic to gain advante and surprise an opponent by taking time away from him and at the same time taking a risk of being passed.

laverfan wrote:...Did anyone watch the Nadal-Berdych match. from 4-2 to losing it 7-5. And Nadal was very aggressive getting his break back at 4-2, with some net play in the mix. ...

Interesting observation. Nadal has shown himself to be anything but one-dimensional. Once pigeoned holed as a one dimensional clay courter never to win Wimbledon or a hard court slam, he transformed himself into a double Wimbledon champion and a double hard court grand slam champion. He has made the last four grand slam finals (hard court, hard court, grass, and clay), winning one (clay) and losing the other three all to Djokovic. Let's see whether he is able to further adapt his game to meet the challenge of the Djokovic.

If you want to blame someone - don't blame Nadal, blame those that have evidently slowed down the conditions at Wimbledon and on the hard courts, and blame the umpires and tournament organisers with regard to the time between points issue. Of course there are those conspiracy theorists who believe that tennis is in the thrall of the Nads and Djoks of this world.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Anyone who can make a slam final and beat the big man (Fed) at Wimbledon is capable.

Tomaz Berdych, Robin Soderling? Hopefully you see the larger perspective.

Both of those are "capable" not that I think they will. Tsonga is definitely a greater player though. He has better variety and I will be surprised if he doesn't win a slam.

ps: I wonder whether we should also blame Federer - for not being able to discover a tactic to negate Nadals high bouncing ball to Feds backhand. When Nadal burst on the scene, I always thought Fed would be able to adapt his game to eventually beat Nadal at Roland Garros. But it never happened. Instead Nadal was able to adapt his game to take it to Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open - beating Federer in Federer's own territory ... What we got from Federer was not a special anti-Nadal tactic, instead we got tears

Anyway, Federer seems to have been playing better recently - he at least seems to be good enough to beat Djokovic from time to time, and maybe he will have a surprise for Nadal too at Wimbledon (unlikely) and on the hard courts (possibly).

Nadal beat Federer at Miami 2004 on HC as a 17 year old - he didnt even use the tactic of balls to his backhand.
Also, if we want to discuss the power in the modern game then this started long before Nadal arrived. Federer himself has been training very hard since the early 2000s to be the fittest player on tour - that was his specific and stated goal.
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/6329

I also agree with NS...courts were slowing down a long time before Nadal and Djokovic arrived on the scene. Pointing fingers at them is, to pardon the pun, pointless.

@Laverfan

Soderling has never beaten Fed at Wimbledon since he became a (or the) man to beat, namely his first slam at Wimbledon 2003.

At Wimbledon he's lost to Nadal 2008, Berdych 2010, and Tsonga 2011.

At RG he's lost to Kuerten 2004, Nadal 2005-2008, 2011, and Soderling 2010.

At USO he's lost to Nalbandian 2003, Del Boy 2009, and Djoko 2010-2011

At Aus he's lost to Safin 2005, Djoko 2008, 2011, and Nadal 2009, 2012

That's a pretty select club of 10 to be a member of. Slam finalists or winners to a man, all have been in the top 5 except for Berdych, who has been No. 6, all have played at the Season Ender.

Murray is notable by his absence.

@LF Berdych is brute power more than sense of tennis, thats why I prefer Del Potro and Cilic over him.

I agree ic...I dont see alot going on behind the eyes with Berdych...he just hits and hopes and then when it comes to crunch moments he's like a rabbit in the headlights....the lip starts wobbling, that haunted look comes over him, the double faults start to flow and his shots go long. He has immense talent but mentally he far far weaker than the top 3. Re: Cilic...I see him similar to Berdych actually. JMDP I agree is a different kettle of Mardy Fish.

@BarryStar - Yes. I was just pointing out to Seifer that beating Federer at a slam is not the only challenge. Nadal, and of late, Djokovic are challenges as well.

Murray did get to the final @ AO 2010.

@iC - Brute power, yes. So is Soderling. Tsonga can be brute power too. Del Potro also has quite a bit of power, but Federer is a master at absorbing power and pace, just not very good at handling topspin to his BH.

Fernando Gonzalez is/was also sheer power. Karlovic on his service only. Tanner playing Borg @W 1979. The Scud. So many.

PS: ... and now Sam Groth joins the growing band of pure power.

NoreStaat - you make some valid points as regards the contrasting fortunes of Nadal and Federer in adapting their respective games to confront the challenge posed both by each other, and by surface variety.

Nadal has indeed done very well to develop skills that have seen him win all the Slams, not just RG, as in the early days. Impressive stuff, no doubt.

But ..... before you go overboard with your praise of him, let's not forget that we're talking about a player who has yet to successfully defend any of his non-clay Slam titles. So perhaps still a work in progress in that respect. And - unless I'm completely mistaken (??) - I don't believe he has ever defended ANY non-clay title, let alone Slams.

As for the Federer tears .... well perhaps he can be excused just a little blubbing, given that he's been tough enough on court to do things that no others have ever been able to do (so far). I suspect you're referring to his emotions at the AO 09 ceremony - well it came after a Final in which he actually won one point more than Rafa across the five sets as a whole, so no shame in that I'd say.

Personally I happen to think that the tears are more understandable from those who have yet to win any of the Slams. And with the dominance that we've seen from the top 3 over recent years, that applies to most of the guys on tour...!!

Was my comment really going overboard in praise of Nadal? I thought I was just stating facts. He does have ten grand slam titles to his name and did appear in the past four slam finals. Also does the mention of Federer tears really require someone to step in to defend Federers "tears"?

BTW: I would not wish one to think I am anti-Federer, and prefer Nadal over Federer.

ps Maybe there will be tears of joy for Federer if he can win Wimbledon - I think that would make a great story, but I think his best chance will be at the US Open.

No worries.

Sure they were facts. Hence why I just felt it was worth touching on a few additional facts re Rafa's surprising failure - given all his other impressive successes - to hold on to a non-Clay title. Purely in the interests of adding a bit of perspective, that's all really.

As for the notion that someone might be required "to step in to defend Federer's tears": There's no requirement for anyone to do anything, be it seen as defending or otherwise. But I'd like to think that the forum is a place for people to bring different views + reflections to the table

Looking ahead, I have to say I'm very much in the camp that believes that Federer's Slam-winning days are behind him, even though he's currently on a roll, and with the best 2012 W/L ratio of all (?) players on tour, seemingly enjoying his tennis as much as ever. But, for me, his work is largely done and his legacy to the sport secure, regardless of whatever else he may or may not yet achieve in the twilight of his career.

Regarding tears, his emotional control breaks down after the finals pretty often. The AO final against Baghdatis as an example, despite the fact that he won. The trophy ceremony and his 'explanation' seems very reasonable.

The match is available in full at http://vault.australianopentv.com/.

laverfan wrote:
He will earn both Green and Red, if he wins RG 2012, unless you reserve the Red for CYGS.

Only just seen this... yes I reserve red only for a true Grand Slam.

Kudos to this thread, the participants and comments on it!

When this came into being, I signed on but have rarely left words due to the sometimes lack of well thought out, non partisan comments.

This was a delight to read and will have me coming back often in the hopes that similarly "mature" threads and comments will follow.

With tennis, among other pursuits, a person's "depth of knowledge," first hand experience playing the sport and involvement therein, is shown by the quality of comment and debate on the subject. In this case, it was very enjoyable to read through the initial posted thread, and then the following comments.

As a follower of pro-tennis, every tournament in the media since early 80's; playing a junoir tennis career; umpiring training; administering tournaments; involvment in Davis Cup, and indeed, calling the McEnroe service line - I feel I have a rudimentary understanding of the subtleties of the game - and it's very enjoyable to read healthy, informed commentary on the current game, it's stars, their playing styles and rivalries. We don't always agree but it's great when there are people who obviously love the game in it's entirety, and not just one particular player, regardless of their place in the game's history.

NICE JOB! Look forward to reading more of such quality as we move past Rome, and into RG, SW19 and on through Olympics! Great read!

A new home for the stats on Google Docs. It is now my unfortunate duty to have to give Nadal, the 1 dimensional moonballer, a slam. Of course, it was his beloved Clay... the surface that is so utterly boring you may as well be watching pong. (the paddles never move to the net either... just like Nadal). I can't wait for Wimbledon, where this 1 trick pony will be utterly sussed out. He is just lucky the rain came along.

Now... the stats:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlJH_wU1qqN4dExfVlE5S3JYZnFMdmUzbW9qSXJFanc

Lol how did your prediction of Nole winning today go

Quit the moaning for crying out loud.

Infact your one dimensional with your comments!