Author Topic: Defeating Defending Champions At Grand Slams And Masters (Read 346 times)

Freak3yman84 · « **on:** February 18, 2013, 02:59:44 PM »

Litotes and I worked on a small project to find how players did after defeating the defending champion at a slam/masters, and who did it the most often. Here's our results:

(Keep in mind this only takes stats from the Open Era)

Novak Djokovic takes the honors for this stat, as he is a perfect 9/9 at winning the tournament after defeating the defending champion

Most Times Defeating The Defending Champion At A Slam

Most Times Defeating The Defending Champion At A Masters

Most Times Defeating The Defending Champion At Both

Most Times Defeating The Defending Champion And Going On To Win

swish · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2013, 03:14:20 PM »

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2013, 03:19:35 PM »

Quote from: swish on February 18, 2013, 03:14:20 PM

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

Sure thing!

Alex · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2013, 08:37:34 PM »

great work guys. I'd love to see more threads like this one. Freaky, I thought you were a smart guy, but not 'this' smart

... really impressed

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2013, 08:48:38 PM »

Quote from: Alex on February 18, 2013, 08:37:34 PM

great work guys. I'd love to see more threads like this one. Freaky, I thought you were a smart guy, but not 'this' smart ... really impressed

Thanks Alex

On behalf of Markus, we'd love to do more of these kinds of things. If you have any idea(s), we'd be more than happy to go to work on a second stat

masterclass · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2013, 05:16:32 AM »

Good work. But of course this thread's premise is somewhat prejudiced against those who have been dominant and won many majors. They often have defended their own titles. e.g. At Roland Garros, Nadal never defeated a defending champion, yet won a record 7 titles.
But it is what it is...

What would also be interesting to see is who has the best record of defending slam/masters titles.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2013, 08:06:15 AM »

Quote from: masterclass on February 19, 2013, 05:16:32 AM

Good work. But of course this thread's premise is somewhat prejudiced against those who have been dominant and won many majors. They often have defended their own titles. e.g. At Roland Garros, Nadal never defeated a defending champion, yet won a record 7 titles.
But it is what it is...

What would also be interesting to see is who has the best record of defending slam/masters titles.

Respectfully,
masterclass

You have a point. But this stat is certainly just for pleasure, and not to determine who are the best players.

But good idea, we could do something on players that defended their titles

I'll contact Litotes, and we'll get started

mav140 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2013, 12:07:26 PM »

Quote from: Freak3yman84 on February 19, 2013, 08:06:15 AM

Quote from: masterclass on February 19, 2013, 05:16:32 AM
Good work. But of course this thread's premise is somewhat prejudiced against those who have been dominant and won many majors. They often have defended their own titles. e.g. At Roland Garros, Nadal never defeated a defending champion, yet won a record 7 titles.
But it is what it is...

What would also be interesting to see is who has the best record of defending slam/masters titles.

Respectfully,
masterclass

You have a point. But this stat is certainly just for pleasure, and not to determine who are the best players.

But good idea, we could do something on players that defended their titles I'll contact Litotes, and we'll get started

I agree, this could be interesting... Get to work...

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2013, 12:08:22 PM »

We've started, and I've finished my part. We're just waiting for Markus (Litotes).

Litotes · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2013, 01:22:51 PM »

Quote from: Freak3yman84 on February 19, 2013, 12:08:22 PM

We've started, and I've finished my part. We're just waiting for Markus (Litotes).

I've done my part too. Send me yours and I'll sow then together

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2013, 02:14:51 PM »

OK, here are the records for defending slams and masters

Most Times Defending A Slam In The Open Era

Most Times Defending A Slam Before The Open Era

Most Times Defending A Slam

Most Times Defending A Masters

masterclass · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2013, 03:48:00 AM »

Excellent work guys. Very interesting. Thanks for the hard work!

Respectfully,
masterclass

mav140 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2013, 10:42:59 AM »

Really nice work!!!! And very interesting!!! Nice job!

Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2013, 12:03:13 PM »

Thanks

Clay Death · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2013, 12:21:25 PM »

great stuff. i enjoyed reading it.

this just goes to show that we have the very best posters right here at tennis4you. smart, objective, reasonable, and hard working.

they not only know their tennis but they are also willing to help the forum grow by making strong, positive contributions.

Freak3yman84 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2013, 06:57:24 PM »

Quote from: Clay Death on February 20, 2013, 12:21:25 PM

great stuff. i enjoyed reading it.

this just goes to show that we have the very best posters right here at tennis4you. smart, objective, reasonable, and hard working.

they not only know their tennis but they are also willing to help the forum grow by making strong, positive contributions.

Clay Death · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2013, 12:10:59 AM »

Mertov · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2013, 01:01:50 PM »

I would like to thank Litotes and Freak3 for the intriguing idea and work.
The "successive" winners obviously dominate the second stat. Federer and Borg winning Roland Garros (Borg), Wimbledon (both), and US Open (Federer) so many times in a row puts them ahead of the pack in that category. They are the only ones who defended them over 50% of the time.

But what I found interesting is how little others have been able to defend their Slam titles. Ivan Lendl is the only other one (with considerable amount of Slams) who was able to defend them at 50% of the time. Sampras, Nadal, John Mc Enroe, are all below 50%.
Wilander has 7 titles and only defended them successively once.
Agassi is 8 and 1.
Connors is 8 and 1.

It shows how hard it is to defend a Slam title.

Litotes · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2013, 02:49:36 PM »

Quote from: Mertov on February 21, 2013, 01:01:50 PM

I would like to thank Litotes and Freak3 for the intriguing idea and work.
The "successive" winners obviously dominate the second stat. Federer and Borg winning Roland Garros (Borg), Wimbledon (both), and US Open (Federer) so many times in a row puts them ahead of the pack in that category. They are the only ones who defended them over 50% of the time.

But what I found interesting is how little others have been able to defend their Slam titles. Ivan Lendl is the only other one (with considerable amount of Slams) who was able to defend them at 50% of the time. Sampras, Nadal, John Mc Enroe, are all below 50%.
Wilander has 7 titles and only defended them successively once.
Agassi is 8 and 1.
Connors is 8 and 1.

It shows how hard it is to defend a Slam title.

Thanks for the kind words

It is hard indeed.

One little fact I'd like to mention. Michael Chang is the youngest slam winner ever. He won only won slam. Now, Boris Becker is the youngest ever to defend a slam. And similarly, he defended a slam only once. Even the second youngest, Mats Wilander, only defended a slam that one time. Doesn't always pay off to start early, it seems.

Clay Death · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2013, 12:45:27 PM »

the sport now is more demanding than ever before.

it will get harder and harder to defend anything, let alone a slam.

anyway defending is overrated.

the all time greats are not being judged by how well they defended. history is looking at them differently. their impact on the sport and their dominance in slams seem to matter the most.

it all boils down who had the most marbles at the end of one`s career.

so if it is total singles slams then it is roger.

if it is total number of titles then it is james scott connors with 109 or so.

if it is total masters titles then it is roger and nadal with 21 each and counting.

nadal could end up with 30 if he can just go buy some common sense somewhere. roger could end up with 24-25.

and so on.

News:

Author Topic: Defeating Defending Champions At Grand Slams And Masters (Read 346 times)