Federers match win at Slams record

It's a great achievement, for sure, though once again Connors record is held back by the status of the Australian Open back then. The link here shows what an insane winning run Jimmy had at Wimbledon and the US;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Match_wins_per_Grand_Slam_tournament

Against that, in the current era of ridiculous physicality, a player could not have the longevity that Connors enjoyed. It's gets me wondering whether Federer may set a record here that will be unbeatable by anyone, even further out than his Slam winning run. Remember that even at the French Open Rafa has only been edging him by one match a year, and should Federer win Roland garros this year he would actually become the record holder for most wins by anyone, ever, at the French!

I suppose this is an inevitable outcome of the ridiculous run of 18 finals in 19 events. That, I am confident, is something that will never be seen again.

I agree that the 18 out of 19 finals is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous Federer stats and will likely never be broken.

However, wrt the most match wins at slam level, then this is a record that Rafa will close in on. He may or may not exceed it. Probably won't as Roger is likely to play on for a few more years and thus extend the run.

Given that Jimmy played for 20+ years shows just how frightingly good Federer's record is and he is not even 31 yet.

Jimmy did however miss quite a few slams for various reasons.

emancipator wrote:I agree that the 18 out of 19 finals is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous Federer stats and will likely never be broken.

However, wrt the most match wins at slam level, then this is a record that Rafa will close in on. He may or may not exceed it. Probably won't as Roger is likely to play on for a few more years and thus extend the run.

I'm not sure; remember that he could win all 4 Slams and still maybe only close by 4 a year. His chance to close in would be based on Federer retiring well before him.

Rafa is on 149 wins I think, almost 100 behind Federer. I really can't see him closing that.

bogbrush wrote:

emancipator wrote:I agree that the 18 out of 19 finals is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous Federer stats and will likely never be broken.

However, wrt the most match wins at slam level, then this is a record that Rafa will close in on. He may or may not exceed it. Probably won't as Roger is likely to play on for a few more years and thus extend the run.

I'm not sure; remember that he could win all 4 Slams and still maybe only close by 4 a year. His chance to close in would be based on Federer retiring well before him.

Rafa is on 149 wins I think, almost 100 behind Federer. I really can't see him closing that.

He would have to win at least another 15 Slams to close in on that record or play for another 20 years!

bogbrush wrote:... That, I am confident, is something that will never be seen again.

Video or DVD?

Motivation is a factor. Many a tennis player will relax the training and the goals, once they have won their first few million, and signed that juicy sponsorship deal.

Yep if Rafa won 25 matches a year at slams (that would be some going!), he'd have to do it for 3-4 more years...after Federer retires. I dont see that happening. Federer has created some records like are likely to be never broken. Nadal too of course. But more of them from Federer. Plus as the surfaces converge you wonder if it just makes it all the harder to even get anywhere near those records anyway.

Its amazing despite all these records and achievements that Federer keeps himself motivated to improve and carry on as he does. I wonder what truly motivates him now and whether that has changed over the years. Someday he may tell us...

lydian - I know what you mean, and I'm somewhat intrigued myself as to why he is motivated to keep going when he's pretty much done it all, and has of course amassed untold riches to boot.

Perhaps there's a clue to be had in a comment he made, almost in passing, a while back about wanting his daughters to see him play at a high level but when old enough to appreciate a little of what it's all about (ie. as opposed to Mum just pointing & saying look there's Daddy over there ....)

Thanks for that interesting stat BB. Amazing to think of Federer at the top of FO wins. Shame about his record in finals there. Let's look at this a bit more. We can see from the below that Federer is set to go 2nd this year since odds are he will get 4-5 wins (debatable) and most probably first by next year. Nadal is on 45 so we might guess he could overhaul Vilas in 2 years as well (this year and next), and perhaps Federer in about 3-4?

1. Guillermo Vilas - 56
2. Ivan Lendl - 53
3. Andre Agassi - 51
4. Roger Federer - 50
5. Björn Borg - 49

Interesting to see Fed already above Borg, well that will teach him to retire too early. In Borg's day was it 7 wins as well, or was it less?
56 would only put you 6th and 7th respectively in the Wimbledon and US stats. Maybe due to the physical fitness at the FO meaning that it's harder to keep reaching the latter stages at a more advanced age?

Yes maybe lags...that would make good sense. It makes you wonder doesnt it...but the ability to actually motivate himself, whatever the reason, is amazing too. Many players might have similar wishes but they cant execute it on court...Federer continues to do that. I also wonder whether part of his motivation is to keep chasing other records and add to huis legacy, to almost prevent others like Nadal and Djokovic getting any nearer to him. In other words...perhaps its Nadal and Djokovic that keep him going too.

Some other fun Roger stats on that article:

He is the only man in the open era to reach all four grand slam finals in the same year. And..he has done it 4 times: vs 0 for anyone else.

He is the only man to reach the semi finals of all four grand slam tournaments in the same year more than once. No-one else has done it more than once. He has done it 5 times.

Of course, Lydian, he wouldn't reveal that in an interview would he, if it were true. If he take him at a word his interviews imply he doesn't think about it to that extent. But if he doesn't..his fans will. I'm sure they'd like to see him put some more distance between Nole and Rafa on certain records before retiring.

A big crunch time will come when his children are too old to travel and need to start school. Having had Mirka with him, and then the 'Federer circus', his life on the road will change a great deal. My guess is that will be the time when his love for the game is put to the test.

Good point there barry,

No doubt about it, the schooling of the girls will probably be important to him. I don't see him having them tutored on tour, he's way to normal for that.

He could always just play a shortened season for the last year or two, e.g.
AO
Madrid
Rome
FO
Halle
Wimbledon
Cincinatti
US Open
Basle

nothing else

plenty of time at home

bogbrush wrote:

emancipator wrote:I agree that the 18 out of 19 finals is the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous Federer stats and will likely never be broken.

However, wrt the most match wins at slam level, then this is a record that Rafa will close in on. He may or may not exceed it. Probably won't as Roger is likely to play on for a few more years and thus extend the run.

I'm not sure; remember that he could win all 4 Slams and still maybe only close by 4 a year. His chance to close in would be based on Federer retiring well before him.

Rafa is on 149 wins I think, almost 100 behind Federer. I really can't see him closing that.

I think it's gonna be close.

Rafa won his 150th slam match today.

He's the youngest player to achieve that milestone.

The previous holder of the record was......

Federer, but he was 326 days older than Rafa is now when he achieved that number. So Roger would have been almost 27. I'm guessing he achieved that number at either the FO or W 2007. We know that his slam count tailed off pretty much after 2007. So if Rafa continues at a similar pace for the next few years he has a chance. Of course I agree that the determining factor will probably be the age at which they both retire. I'm sure both will continue to be on average at least serial quater finalists virtually until the day they retire.



emancipator

Even though Feds Slam count tailed off, his win rate hardly has. A lot of finals and semi losses, nothing early.

Henman Bill wrote:He could always just play a shortened season for the last year or two, e.g.
AO
Madrid
Rome
FO
Halle
Wimbledon
Cincinatti
US Open
Basle

nothing else

plenty of time at home

If he wanted to just play for fun then he could play a schedule as thin as that one.

But if he is serious about winning tournaments then that wouldn't suffice. The nature of the tour and rankings doesn't allow such a trimmed schedule. His ranking would plummet, he'd face tougher opponents in earlier rounds, feel rusty, and consequently lose early, which in turn would make him more liable to lose early in the next tournament and so forth. I can't forsee Federer settling for that. He may as well play the champios tour in that case.

If he wants to compete, nothing less than 14-15 touraments a year would suffice. So basically a fullish schedule.

bogbrush wrote:Even though Feds Slam count tailed off, his win rate hardly has. A lot of finals and semi losses, nothing early.

Yeah that's true, but I can't see Rafa suffering many early losses over the next few years, just don't see the players out there in the earlier rounds that could take him out. However, as you said previously, things can change very quickly, so even Rafa's current consistency is not a given. Roger on the other hand has already banked all those victories and looks likely to add a fair few more.

emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Even though Feds Slam count tailed off, his win rate hardly has. A lot of finals and semi losses, nothing early.

Yeah that's true, but I can't see Rafa suffering many early losses over the next few years, just don't see the players out there in the earlier rounds that could take him out. However, as you said previously, things can change very quickly, so even Rafa's current consistency is not a given. Roger on the other hand has already banked all those victories and looks likely to add a fair few more.

That last bits the clincher. I don't see Fed losing in the first week any time soon, and doing better than that most probably.

I dont think so he will carry on beyond 2014, in my view 2012 is the year he waited for, he wants that Olympic gold, i guess he will do one last year in 2013 and based on the success of the year it will drag on for few more months and he might be tempted to do one more Wimbledon, so my effective guess is 2014 Wimbledon or USO.

I guess his main motivation factor is love for the game, and closely followed by Olympic dreams.

According to Wikipedia they stand thus in slam match % wins and w/l

2. Rafael Nadal 87.72 150–21
3. Roger Federer 86.94 233–35

Look how similar their overall % rates are.

Rafa has won in excess of 20 slam matches a year since 2007, the sole exception being 2009. If he can keep that rate up for the next 5 years he can hope to have 250+ slam match wins and whatever he can win from the age of 31 onwards.

I'd imagine that Fed will pick up another 20-30 wins.

Therefore it's doable for Rafa, but with Fed's wins in the bank and his ability still to beat the vast majority of his opponents on tour I think he's likely to fall short. His career trajectory so far and the effort he expends for his wins suggests that keeping up such a win rate for more than another 3 years would be hugely tough.

I hate these 'set up' posts

Federer is owning so many records and I don't think we'll see anything quite like him again. Mind you, said the same after Lendl - then came Sampras, then Federer, so who knows really.

Federer's making those finals 18 of 19 will stand forever. It's impossible to get that level of consistency AND have a playing style that allows it, and to never be unfit for a Major, make those finals, semis and occasionally of late, quarters. It's unimaginable.

Can't see Rafa making his count of Major singles wins, no greater fan there is, but reality...??

I think his downslide as he ages will be more marked than that of Federer - even though consensus doesn't seem to have Federer with much of a chance of winning Majors (don't necessarily agree myself!), he's a solid bet for semis really - the quarter defeats have been an aberration as far as I am concerned to this point.

I think alot will depend on how Federer does with remaining 3 Majors of 2012, plus Olympics but don't see him finishing before end of 2013 at earliest. We have to see how Djokovic pans out, Rafa makes out - through rest of 2012, and 2013. One never knows....

Hard to see Federer, Djokovic, Nadal not making 1/2's here as a given - all the talk of draws, fixes, etc., unless there's a huge effort by likes of Berdych, etc., I just don't see any Major upsets for those top 3. Mind you - Serena on 29th May - same deal, and we all know how that ended!!

Rock on with Day 4.........

B'star. I see you have Fed only losing three GS matches in his career in your stats. I know Rog is good but not that good. Incidentally, I ran an earlier post about Fed breaking the ConnorsGS singles-win record with his first win but now it seems Jimmy C chalked up 233 wins, not 232 as some records showed. Anyway, a Fed win today will sort everything out.

emancipator wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:He could always just play a shortened season for the last year or two, e.g.
AO
Madrid
Rome
FO
Halle
Wimbledon
Cincinatti
US Open
Basle

nothing else

plenty of time at home

If he wanted to just play for fun then he could play a schedule as thin as that one.

But if he is serious about winning tournaments then that wouldn't suffice. The nature of the tour and rankings doesn't allow such a trimmed schedule. His ranking would plummet, he'd face tougher opponents in earlier rounds, feel rusty, and consequently lose early, which in turn would make him more liable to lose early in the next tournament and so forth. I can't forsee Federer settling for that. He may as well play the champios tour in that case.

If he wants to compete, nothing less than 14-15 touraments a year would suffice. So basically a fullish schedule.

Nah - if he had half the points he had now, he'd still be ranked 5th. ANd I doubt he would forget how to play tennis between Basle and the AO. And if it was only for the last one season for instance, the ranking going down wouldn't matter much.

I agree it's possible for a final season since the previous seasons points would protect his ranking for the majority of it.

bb's article was prompted by Federer overtaking Connors' record for most number of matches won at the Slams.

But, whilst we're in stats mode, I think I've calculated (hopefully accurately, unless proved otherwise.... ) another interesting milestone reached by Federer at this current RG event.

This is the 50th straight Slam at which Federer has competed, dating back to a run which began at the 2000 Aussie Open.

That's quite a streak for consecutive appearances, and one which no other other currently active player that I know of comes close to matching .......

He's sort of like Fabrice Santoro, except he wins stuff.

Not his most impressive stat though, a sack of spuds could turn up to 50 events on the trot. What is impressive is that if those are the only 50 he has played (and correct me if i'm wrong, he's won an average of >4.5 matches per event, meaning his average attainment across those 50 Slams is to be in the semi-final.

bb - Well I hear what you say as regards 'just turning up' not being hugely impressive in itself. But let's not forget that to even achieve that sort of streak in the first place you do actually have to remain fit & healthy in what is a very arduous and demanding sport. Some of that is of course down to good fortune, but a lot of it is down to disciplined training & smart scheduling.

He is, as mentioned in earlier post, the only active player to have done it, so it can't be that easy (proverbial sack of spuds or not !!)

But as you say, it's ultimately his remarkable ratio of wins to losses (and at such a 'young' age when compared to Connors et al ) that really him sets him apart in a more meaningful way.

BTW ......I think there were a couple of other Slams played by Fed before the consecutive streak began.

It wouldn't matter. Fed would still have exceeded him. If he carries on he will be at the top for all the major slam records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#ATP_Grand_Slam_tournament_history

bogbrush wrote:Not his most impressive stat though, a sack of spuds could turn up to 50 events on the trot.

Hmm - a sack of spuds who managed to get itself into the top 128 of men's tennis for 13 years in a row. I wouldn't want to have to mash them.

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not his most impressive stat though, a sack of spuds could turn up to 50 events on the trot.

Hmm - a sack of spuds who managed to get itself into the top 128 of men's tennis for 13 years in a row. I wouldn't want to have to mash them.

That's a different achievement.

His average wins/Slam, even allowing for a few over the 50, is what separates him from the spuds.

And we will never see an era where your main competition is a fat guy, a guy with a serve and nothing else, and a gutty five foot ten aussie with a dodgey hip. Never again will that confluence of weak top level competition ever be assembled for a federer to dominate and humiliate for years. So yes many of his records are safe.

Oh dear, there we were having a sensible chat and someone crashes in dragging his rage all over the place.

Calm down dear, and start us up another funny thread won't you?

Socal what is with you?

You used to be a reasonable poster a few months ago.

It seems as if Novak's fallibility has deranged you.

All you seem to do on here now is have a pop at Federer or his fans.

Please don't take this the wrong way. It was much better whe you offered reasoned balanced posts. You do talk a lot of tennis sense when you put your mind to it.



emancipator

emancipator, always nice to hear from you. I didn't start the fire as billy joel would say. Maybe I am just amping myself up for the semi, I need to whip myself into a frenzy for this one and picking online fights with fed worshippers is fun. There will be more balanced posts in the future but until this RG is over I am running on adrenaline and the memories of RG 2011, which the entire forum is enjoying rubbing my face in it with a few exceptions of course. Plus I am going to vegas this weekend and have to get my licks in now because I think i will be too inebriated to post this weekend.

Ok fair enough..

So long as you don't morph into a caricature of this thing you are temporarily immitating.

"I didn't start the fire"

Irony will never die with you around.

bogbrush wrote:"I didn't start the fire"

Irony will never die with you around.

BB, I will have a complimentary scotch on the rocks in Vegas in honor of the ironic statement you just produced, got to love a town that give s you free liquor, well as long as you lose your life savings playing black jack or slots. Nothing I like better than good irony.

Hahahahahahah. Social makes my day, I swear! Like a parachutist he jumps face first into anything.

Feeling lonely I guess? Without the other Djoko fan left in this world.

Soc: who are those Fed's worshippers of whom you keep on talking nearly obsessively I feel: Tenez ain't here anymore, who I reckon was one always on your mind, Boggo's I bet is another, who else?

Just curious, really.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:"I didn't start the fire"

Irony will never die with you around.

BB, I will have a complimentary scotch on the rocks in Vegas in honor of the ironic statement you just produced, got to love a town that give s you free liquor, well as long as you lose your life savings playing black jack or slots. Nothing I like better than good irony.

I sat at the blackjack tables at the New York New York for 12 hours, had my booze and walked off $5k up, lotta fun.

socal1976 wrote:And we will never see an era where your main competition is a fat guy, a guy with a serve and nothing else, and a gutty five foot ten aussie with a dodgey hip. Never again will that confluence of weak top level competition ever be assembled for a federer to dominate and humiliate for years. So yes many of his records are safe.

Yup - this was v. much in keeping with the thread before....

But, to continue the interesting and novel debate introduced in a vein of polite reason introduced by the post, I was wondering how would we describe the top guys now?

Djokovic - a (formerly) dominant No. 1 who is so brillant that he was good enough to be No. 3 for 2 of the years in which Fed was No. 1
Nadal - a former No. 1 who is so brilliant that he was good enough to be No. 2 for 4 of the years in which Federer was No. 1 and who is No. 2 again
Federer - an ageing flat-track bully of little account whose claim to fame is that he took advantage and humiliated a bunch of useless kids and out-of-shape no-hopers during his reign at No. 1
Andy Murray - (take your choice) [a defensive player who will never win a slam and is there to make up the numbers]/[a brilliant young prospect at the age of 25, already the best player not to win a slam, for whom that first slam win is a question of 'when not if'], and who has spent a handful of weeks ranked ahead of Federer so far
The rest - a bunch of giants of the game whose cumulative achievements scale the peaks of having managed 1 slam since RG 2005, a handful of Masters wins, and a lot of weeks at No. 3 or 4, mostly the latter.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:"I didn't start the fire"

Irony will never die with you around.

BB, I will have a complimentary scotch on the rocks in Vegas in honor of the ironic statement you just produced, got to love a town that give s you free liquor, well as long as you lose your life savings playing black jack or slots. Nothing I like better than good irony.

I sat at the blackjack tables at the New York New York for 12 hours, had my booze and walked off $5k up, lotta fun.

I only play no limit hold em if I play. Once hit a bad beat jackpot at a casino near my home town and won 16000 dollars. Lost with a full house and Aces full of jacks to a guy with 4 jacks. The bad beat jackpot gave me 16k the guy who had the 4 jacks got the pot and 6k and everyone who played the hand at the table got 600 dollars. One poor guy at the table was outside smoking and paid 600 dollars for that cigarette.

barrystar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:And we will never see an era where your main competition is a fat guy, a guy with a serve and nothing else, and a gutty five foot ten aussie with a dodgey hip. Never again will that confluence of weak top level competition ever be assembled for a federer to dominate and humiliate for years. So yes many of his records are safe.

Yup - this was v. much in keeping with the thread before....

But, to continue the interesting and novel debate introduced in a vein of polite reason introduced by the post, I was wondering how would we describe the top guys now?

Djokovic - a (formerly) dominant No. 1 who is so brillant that he was good enough to be No. 3 for 2 of the years in which Fed was No. 1
Nadal - a former No. 1 who is so brilliant that he was good enough to be No. 2 for 4 of the years in which Federer was No. 1 and who is No. 2 again
Federer - an ageing flat-track bully of little account whose claim to fame is that he took advantage and humiliated a bunch of useless kids and out-of-shape no-hopers during his reign at No. 1
Andy Murray - (take your choice) [a defensive player who will never win a slam and is there to make up the numbers]/[a brilliant young prospect at the age of 25, already the best player not to win a slam, for whom that first slam win is a question of 'when not if'], and who has spent a handful of weeks ranked ahead of Federer so far
The rest - a bunch of giants of the game whose cumulative achievements scale the peaks of having managed 1 slam since RG 2005, a handful of Masters wins, and a lot of weeks at No. 3 or 4, mostly the latter.

Oh relax barry, fair enough I think fed dominates in any era, but he did pad his stats against a pretty weak bunch till about 2007. I don't want to rekindle another wei keira debate. I am just having a fun little jab during rivalry week. You know there is only one way this thing is going to get settled in the semi, djo djo will exorcise the ghosts of fogi. But I will finish by saying I do think as great as fed is he did pad his numbers a little against some stiffs. No harm in that he beat the guys they put up in front of him and he beat them badly. For a couple of years until Nadal and Djoko rose up and admittedly fed got older it was like watching the globe trotters against the New Jersey Generals. Fed was 801 and 0

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Soc: who are those Fed's worshippers of whom you keep on talking nearly obsessively I feel: Tenez ain't here anymore, who I reckon was one always on your mind, Boggo's I bet is another, who else?

Just curious, really.

JK I really don't want to go public and draw lines and polarize the thing even further. I think everyone knows that the people I generally get into the biggest tussles with would logically be the ones that I consider fed worshippers and extremists.

socal1976 wrote:And we will never see an era where your main competition is a fat guy, a guy with a serve and nothing else, and a gutty five foot ten aussie with a dodgey hip. Never again will that confluence of weak top level competition ever be assembled for a federer to dominate and humiliate for years. So yes many of his records are safe.

socal - just what is it that prompts you to start posting this sort of waffle on what has otherwise been a perfectly sensible thread .... ??

I'm quite bemused that someone who professes to like the sport can write such irrational stuff.

And then you revive your label of 'Fed worshippers' (would they be the same as the 'Federistas' about whom you seem to obsess by any chance...???) - even though we see no sign of worshipping.

Why would you want to denigrate by implication great players such as Nadal and Djokovic who have been around for so much of the time that Federer himself has been around ....??

In case you hadn't noticed, the likes of Nadal and Djokovic are hardly new kids on the block. Rafa well & truly announced his arrival way back in 2005 with his first RG title. Since then Federer has dominated by winning 12 Slams. And even if we go back only as far as the 'Djokovic period' (AO 2008), Federer has won four Slams since then.

So in short I haven't seen any competition recently from your (charmingly-described) 'fat guy, a guy with a serve and nothing else and a gutsy aussie with a dodgy hip." But we DID see Federer maintaining his Number One ranking for a long, long time in the presence of both Novak and Rafa ; and even now still hanging in comfortably at number 3, aged a couple of months short of 31.