- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,757
- Reactions
- 5,131
- Points
- 113
Here's something for y'all. The chart should be self-explanatory, but it includes all players who won 3 or more Slams in the Open Era, both wins and losses in finals, color-coded by Slam (purple for AO, red for RG, green for Wimbledon, blue for USO).
Some thoughts. One thing I like about this chart is that it includes final losses as well, which are sometimes lost in the mentality that it is "win or go home." Reaching a Slam final is a feat unto itself, especially when you do it a bunch of times.
Further, it shows us that a player like Andy Murray, in some ways, belongs more with the Wilanders, Edbergs, and Beckers of the world. No, I'm not saying he's on par with those guys, but I do think there's an argument to be made that he's closer to them than the Vilas/Courier/etc bunch. He is, at the least, the greatest player of the Open Era with less than six Slams (not counting the older guys that crossed eras), and probably the player most impacted by playing alongside other greats (Roddick would be up there too, with his 1-4 Slam final record...poor Andy R was 0-8 vs. Roger in Slams, all in the QF or later, and all four Final losses to Roger).
Lendl is in a similar boat, being the only 4+ Slam winner who lost more Slams than he won (8-11). He's been in more Slam finals than anyone but the Big Three, including Sampras. He was in at least one final every year from 1981-91, six of which he appeared in two or more.
It is also worth noting that Laver, Newcombe, and Rosewall only include their Open Era records. If we included their entire record, especially with Pro Slams, they'd be up much higher. I might do a similar chart, with Pro and Amateur Slams included.
Finally, as you can see, not only is Novak one win away from taking the lead, but tying Roger for most finals. He'll almost certainly not only finish his career with the most GS titles, but the most final appearances.
Some thoughts. One thing I like about this chart is that it includes final losses as well, which are sometimes lost in the mentality that it is "win or go home." Reaching a Slam final is a feat unto itself, especially when you do it a bunch of times.
Further, it shows us that a player like Andy Murray, in some ways, belongs more with the Wilanders, Edbergs, and Beckers of the world. No, I'm not saying he's on par with those guys, but I do think there's an argument to be made that he's closer to them than the Vilas/Courier/etc bunch. He is, at the least, the greatest player of the Open Era with less than six Slams (not counting the older guys that crossed eras), and probably the player most impacted by playing alongside other greats (Roddick would be up there too, with his 1-4 Slam final record...poor Andy R was 0-8 vs. Roger in Slams, all in the QF or later, and all four Final losses to Roger).
Lendl is in a similar boat, being the only 4+ Slam winner who lost more Slams than he won (8-11). He's been in more Slam finals than anyone but the Big Three, including Sampras. He was in at least one final every year from 1981-91, six of which he appeared in two or more.
It is also worth noting that Laver, Newcombe, and Rosewall only include their Open Era records. If we included their entire record, especially with Pro Slams, they'd be up much higher. I might do a similar chart, with Pro and Amateur Slams included.
Finally, as you can see, not only is Novak one win away from taking the lead, but tying Roger for most finals. He'll almost certainly not only finish his career with the most GS titles, but the most final appearances.
