Tennis: Players Records Vs. Top 10 at Slams ...

... So, with the first slam of the year (Aussie Open) coming up next week I thought it would be interesting to go back and see which players over the last 20-25 years have had the best records vs. top ten players when it matters most: At the Grand Slams. I was able to find pretty accurate records at the ATP's site back to about 1985 or else I would have gone back further. The US Open doesn't have updated rankings for each player until 1988. Those few years I was able to figure easily enough. So who has built their successes against the best of the best? And who has done it on the backs of weaker players?

Here's the W-L and winning percentage of the greats of the game since 1985 vs. top 10 players at the time of the tournament (* denotes player is still active):


*R. Federer - 30-9 (76.9%)
P. Sampras - 30-11 (73.1%)
*G. Kuerten - 8-3 (72.7%)
B. Becker - 22-15 (59.4%)
*M. Safin - 11-8 (57.8%)
M. Wilander - 11-9 (55.0%)
*R. Nadal - 6-5 (54.5%)
I. Lendl - 18-16 (52.9%)
S. Edberg - 20-18 (52.6%)
A. Agassi - 25-25 (50.0%)
J. Courier - 16-16 (50.0%)
S. Bruguera - 7-8 (46.6%)
J. McEnroe - 7-9 (43.7%)
*JC Ferrero - 8-11 (42.1%)
*C. Moya - 6-9 (40.0%)
P. Rafter - 6-11 (35.2%)
G. Ivanisevic - 7-14 (33.3%)
M. Chang - 8-17 (32.0%)
*L. Hewitt - 7-15 (31.8%)
T. Muster - 5-11 (31.2%)
Y. Kafelnikov - 4-12 (25.0%)
*A. Roddick - 3-9 (25.0%)
M. Rios - 2-7 (22.2%)

 

Dammit, please move this to Lounge. Thanks.

 

Some fine points there, JT1. I'm near enough in agreement my fave three sports have always been football, boxing and tennis with motorsport and golf following slightly behind.

It's an interesting list for sure. I'm a bit surprised that Kuerten is so high % wise, but even though he only 3 losses, appart from some exceptions (3 GS titles and 2 QF's, I think) he mostly always exited the big tournaments in the early rounds, so that's likely why. Lendl, on the other hand, has huge amount of losses because he used to lose in the late stages of the slams, finals or semi-finals. Spot on about Mac, Lendl was hitting his absolute best in the mid part of the decade (just as Mac was starting to dip slightly) and along with Becker the two raised the bar a notch. Lendl wasn't the most talented of his era yet was frighteningly consistant probably moreso than any of his peers. He defeated McEnroe on quite a few occasions so that probably has a bit to do with those stats (more of those loses came towards the later part of the 80's)

Lendl's assets were his very powerful serve, speed, hard groundstrokes (often from the bseline, stamina and will to win. He was also one of the greatest 'passers' the game has ever seen, the only thing missing from his career was the lack of a Wimbledon title. As for Sampras he never was a dominant as Fed has been but his consistency was superb, despite clay being a weaklink (he was immense at both Flushing and SW19).

The stats just go to show how incredible Fed's run is. Playing a fellow top 10 or 5 or 2 or whatever at the end of the tournament is extremely difficult since you are playing a very talented player who has pedigree and is playing very well. Anything above half is good, 70% is extraordinarily good.


Ps: One other note- Federer has almost played as many matches against top 10'ers as Pete did. When they went to a 32 seed system, more of the top ranked players made their way through the draw and so a player has to win more matches against the top players to win slams.

 

For what it's worth he my Top 10 list (discect and critique as you so wish):

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Rod Laver
4. Bjorn Borg
5. John McEnroe
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Andre Agassi
8. Boris Becker
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Stefan Edberg

 

A mixture. It's hard to guage and weigh up when making a concise all-time list. I think players record at the two biggies Wimbledon and US Open counts for a lot (wins finals reached etc), longevity, consistency, total GS wins, etc. All sorts.

Lendl is the hardest to rate, anywhere between #5 and #10 is fair I have him where he is due to lack of Wimbledon titles. It depends really from the half way point on the list onwards you could switch 'em round whatever way you wish. It's all very close.