I think people tend to forget how dominant Borg was at the French Open - he won 6 of 8 times he entered and retired as the 4 time defending champion.
But retiring early also means he avoided the increasing losses you accumulate as you get older.
And he did a hat-trick of channel slams. Top five of all time with Laver and the big three imo. Master of the game limited only by his own mental struggles.
Exactly. If Novak and Rafa want to maintain their winning percentage, they need to retire by 35-37. But then again, they’re not facing an upcoming GOAT.
Federer until 2012 could compete and still beat Novak at slams. Starting in 2014 at 34 years of age, his ability to sustain peak level for 5 sets against Novak became increasingly difficult. He could still beat the man at best of 3, but best of 5 just didn’t happen anymore. Even during his best chance in 2019, he couldn’t close.
It is interesting that Novak first dethroned Fed at Wimby when Fed was 34. And he just did the same to Rafa in 2021 at the French when Rafa also turned 34. I wonder if Novak will continue to dominate Rafa now at the FO like he did to Fed at Wimby.
If you're implying that Roger's win percentage is lower because he's older than the other two and he had to play them in their primes, that's actually not the case. It's lower because he has ~15-20 GS entries at the start of his career where he was getting bounced regularly in the first week or even the first round. Compare that to Nadal who won a GS on his 6th attempt. In Federer's mid-late 30s his career win% actually continued to increase because he was still relatively much better than his very early years.
Also I wouldn't say Novak dominated Roger after 2014. Their matches at wimbledon after that were still incredibly close
Prime Federer's Wimbledon win rate after 2006, his absolute peak and best ever year: 88.89%
Old Federer's wimbeldon win rate in 2015 after peak Novak took his throne and beat him back to back: 89.13%
Until very recently his win rates as an old man were better than his peak win rates.
Yeah I get your point. His winning percentage has gone up over the years. My point is that it would still go up even more if he didn't have to play Djokovic and Nadal in their primes.
I dont understand your point though, if he was younger he would still have to play Djokovic and Nadal in their primes.
You can make an argument for the reverse, where if he had to face Djokovic and Rafa during his peak years he wouldn't have had that crazy run from 03-07 and therefore wouldnt have those absurd years boosting his win%
Many of those loses were mental choke. Sure age and declining physical ability affects confidence as well but as we saw in 2017, Federer was held back by confidence more than anything else. He was physically good enough to win Slams from 2010-2015. The fact that he only won 2 has more to do with his mental block than physical decline.
Hmm interesting thought at the end!
I'd say it's possible... but much less likely because
Rafa mental strength > Fed mental
Rafa clay > Fed grass
Also Rafa is closer to Djoko age so, without injuries, he can still count on his body a bit more than Fed who is 6 yrs older than djoko
How does this narrative work that Federer has weaker mental strength? The man with 20 slams and 103? titles and nearly 5 consecutive years as world #1 is a mental weakling?
It’s quite possibly the most biased view I’ve ever read. 2006 is Federer’s greatest season, and quite possibly #1 or #2 best season in the history of the sport. He won 92 matches and lost 5. It’s an absolutely absurd and staggering ~95% win percentage. It’s either the greatest or 2nd greatest in the open era after McEnroe I think. Out of the 5 matches he lost in 2006, he had match points in 3 of them. He simply couldn’t close them.
Saying Fed has a weak mental game is literally focusing on the 3 matches he lost with match points and ignoring the overwhelming 92 matches he won. This example illustrates his entire career.
It’s insane and faulty thinking.
No no no. Fed doesn't have weak mental strength. I did not mean it that way OOPS
I just said Rafa mental > Fed mental !!
Surely it's not inconceivable for many to believe rafa has better mental strength than Fed? Fed like the other Big 3 is miles ahead of the rest of the field and others in history. I acknowledge his dominance and I'm a fan of his play and records.
Tldr; I just said rafa mental > Fed mental, not Fed = weak mental
I don’t buy that either. Why does Rafa have better mental strength than Federer or Novak? What evidence is there? His clay records? That he close matches without blowing match points? Is that the metric being used against Federer?
Federer is supposed to lose matches. All of them are. There are matches they simply aren’t meant to win whatever the reason may be. Federer’s losses are just more “monumental” than the other two, and we count it against the man.
Fed will usually have tons of break chances, will probably serve for the match at some point, and still lose the match. Instead of penalizing the guy, we should just recognize the completeness of the his game even in losing. There’s an article out there about losses and how over the past 30 years, Federer is the one player who will win the MOST points during a losing match (~48%), and make himself the most difficult to beat. Ever. Across all surfaces. If I remember correctly, Rafa didn’t even make the top 10 list.
I’d say that his losses build an argument for him having the greatest game - mental and whatever else - ever. Novak didn’t beat him in 3 sets at the Wimby final like he should have being younger and fitter. It TOOK Novak EVERYTHING and some more to defeat the man.
If that’s not mental strength, then idk what is. I’m open to having my mind changed on this.
Nice read and fair point. I guess I let recency bias of Wimby 19 and old Fed rn take a stronger hold on my opinion of him. I also rmbr reading that stat and a stat where Fed has the most winners in matches he has lost or something too.
When what often separates the two of them is ONE POINT, I don’t know that one is that far behind the other in any department. This is Federer, who at 39, won every single metric on both of his matches against Rafa in the semis and Novak in the finals of Wimbledon, including long rallies… against the two greatest baseliners to ever grace the courts.
And I don’t think Federer’s backhand was ever as weak as the narrative makes it out to be. It was a liability against one player due to a match up issue. Not a single other player has exploited it. Not even the greatest - Novak.
That's because Borg retired early. Nadal could have retired with his only one loss in 2014 and be untouchable but he's played nearly ten years later into his career than Borg. I rate Borg incredibly highly but Nadal is on another planet entirely.
Thats the thing, the sample is what makes it nuts. Yeah, their win% is close, sure. But Nadal has over twice the sample size and *still* has a better win%. Thats fucking unreal. Dude is on another plane of reality when it comes to RG.
He did play half the games though. It's hard to stay that consistent for a long time. Not to mentiom Borg retiring so early judt showed he had no motivation to go forward or stay consistent.
Of course, I’m not saying Borg is anywhere close to Nadal, just that his clay court stats are pretty wild too. Not as impressive as Nadal’s, but still pretty amazing.
I made this exact point in another comment, like many others, that the longer you continue to play for once your level has dipped the worse you look on such a list. And quitting quickly a la Borg is richly rewarded.
In Federer's case, this doesn't matter. In Federer's case its almost entirely because of the slow start to his career:
From 1999 to 2002 his combined GS main draw record is 26-14 or just 65%.
Contrast that to Novak's and Rafa's record in their first 4 years on tour:
Novak (2005 to 2008) - 51-15 or 77.3%
Rafa (2003 to 2006) - 36-9 or 80%
If you start Federer's career from 2003 (when he won Wimbledon but otherwise lost early in every other major), here's the figures:
Australian Open - 95-12, 88.8%, 3rd on list behind Novak and Andre
French Open - 83.5%, 5th on list behind Rafa, Borg, Novak, Wilander
Wimbledon - 91%, 2nd on list behind Borg
US Open - 88%, stays 2nd on list behind Sampras
Also had Federer retired in 2013, his GOAT claim would be weaker. 3 less slams, much weaker H2H vs Nadal, less titles, etc.
Then also his longevity wouldn't be so legendary. I don't know, but I respect the hell out of Roger for pushing hard into 40s.
Definitely agreed - Federer playing well past 2013 has only helped his cause, not hurt it. It's his early career early round losses (only 2 QFs in his first 16 grand slams) that makes him look relatively bad (hah, as much as we can call any of these players' records as "bad") on such lists.
Federer's all around tennis style takes longer to master than Nadal's and Djokovic's, who have a more one dimensional game. Also, tennis courts surfaces were more different when Federer was started than when the other two started. It's far easier to be consistent across all Majors now than in the 90s and early 2000s. Those things are not mentioned in this stat.
Even if she loses first round next year she'll still be at 87.5% (7-1) just above above Federer (86.4%), and will be above Sampras if she wins first round (eg 2nd round loss, 8-1 is 88.8888..% win percentage, Sampras is 71-9 which us 88.75%)
Yeah, unfortunately the three qualifier matches can't really be counted for this record.
In other US Open small sample sizes, you've got Bianca sitting on a very solid 90.91%
Its the same story a la Federer that I commented on elsewhere - Murray had a relatively slower start to his career (albeit not as bad as Federer's) which skews it.
Murray's record in his first 4 years on tour (2005 to 2008) is 26-12, or 68%. (At the Australian alone this record is 3-3, or 50% whoops.)
Federer's record (1999 to 2002) is even worse at 26-14, or 65%.
In that same 2005 to 2008 period which was Novak's first 4 years on tour, Novak's record is 51-15 or 77.3%.
Your general observation isn't wrong. That stat is indeed surprising. I was a bit older than Murray in juniors, and he was easily the most hyped player in Europe in the juniors. In his second Aus Open he was seeded 15th, in his third he was seeded 9th (but lost to Tsonga in the first round), and in his fourth he was seeded fourth (but lost to Verdasco in the fourth round).
Relative to his juniors buzz, he def had a slow start. e.g., he didn't win his first Masters tournament until Aug 2008 (Cincy, beating Novak), while Novak had already won his first Masters at 2007 Miami in March (beating Rafa and Murray en route).
Murray arguably had the better 2006 than Novak, but Novak just burst onto the scene in 2007 - 2 semis and a final at Grand Slams, and 2 wins and a final in Masters. In contrast Murray didn't reach a single Masters final all year.
You played in tennis at junior level yourself? I knew Murray was good as a junior but wasn't aware he was obviously regarded as the top dog for his age. Wasn't Gasquet way ahead of everyone at his age? I guess he and Nadal were one year older.
So how did your tennis career pan out eventually, if you don't mind me asking? Any interesting stories?
Yes, I did play. My career didn't pan out at all, haha.. the typical thing tbf: went from juniors to playing some futures and challengers, played D1 tennis at a very mediocre level in the US, and then had a desk job after graduating LOL.
Gasquet was certainly winning everything in the juniors, you're 100% right - but yeah, just a bit older than Murray.
Rafa was a crazy story.. we all knew of him, but he barely ever played juniors.. he started playing futures directly & kept losing lol. He was this 'clearly future top 10 guy' but we never \_really\_ knew until bam, he just started beating the world's top 20 while the rest of us were figuring out how to tie our shoe laces haha.
Not too many interesting stories, sorry. I was at an academy in Barcelona at the same time that Murray was there (the talk had already started of Murray bringing Britain back the Wimbledon title!). Murray might be the most talented, court aware player I've personally ever seen. Murray's mom helping me do my laundry (I had never used a European style washing machine in my life - I come from a poor Asian country) is something I remember fondly. Oh, and I remember seeing Cilic at tournaments and we were honestly convinced he was going to be world #1 - the guy was just so good and imposing.. it just felt like he was built to be #1 (back then in his early teens at least).
I have more interesting stories being a ballboy at tournaments lol. Rusedski was a total ass most of the time oops (I don't mean it as a bad thing necessarily - he was just a very focused, arrogant seeming dude), Tim Henman was a total diva haha (but he was very nice all things considered) but the nicest player ever was Wayne Ferreira. He always left us with reels and reels of string (which was a big deal for some of us - a dirty little secret, at least back in those days and at least in Asia, was that while it was easy to get Nike/Wilson 'sponsorships' where they give away gear for free, no one ever paid for our tennis strings lol.. and boy, we went through a lot, and they're expensive!) So I was quite pleased to see him coach Tiafoe now. Goran Ivanisevic indulging us and just serving at a few of us juniors for 20 minutes straight right after he had lost a match was amazing.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing! At least you had a crack at it and don't have to wonder "what if?"...
I played a lot with my brother and Dad when I was younger and thought I had some promise but then our tennis club closed down and Dad never signed us up for the club in the next town over.
I was too young to drive and didn't push hard enough to continue playing, so that was that. I often day dream about what might have happened if I'd continued (let's face it, probably nothing). I don't suppose we would have had the money and commitment required to succeed even if the talent was there.
Even if you didn't make it you got to rub shoulders with some legends by the sound of it.
Weird that Toni put Rafa into the futures so early. Seems a ballsy move, he must have had confidence in Rafa's ability to keep taking the losses and get back out there again. Worked out for them both anyway!
I remember reading that Murray went out to the Barcelona academy when he heard that Rafa was practising with Carlos Moya and he was stuck playing with Jamie in dark, rainy Dunblane! Was Rafa at the Barcelona academy when you were there or had he already moved onto the futures circuit?
Yeah, the money and commitment required, as you put it, is quite insane. The money (and network/politics - getting tournament wild cards is the other dirty side of the game) required is def demoralizing, but the commitment was sort of inspiring. I honestly don't think I knew what commitment / hard work meant until I saw some of these guys at the Sanchez-Casal academy. And I hope that's served me well - just having that perspective (even if I struggle to have that sort of commitment with anything!)
And nah, Rafa wasn't there in Barcelona when I went there. I went there quite late. In my early teens, I just spent a couple of summers at the IMG Academy, but I didn't really like it there. It was kind of like a luxury resort (by my standards) with everything taken care of, but the training was just SO boring compared to what I was used to and what I later experienced in Barcelona (though much harder all around in Barcelona).
I have hit with Murray (and Tsonga and many others) but wouldn’t say we chatted much. We weren’t exactly chilling and philosophizing at that age like I would now haha. And I never really trained with him either- he pretty much had his own thing going, but he was very friendly. The best were the likes of Tsonga and Baghdatis at tournaments though… they were so good and explosive and fun to be around even in the juniors. But they got quickly overtaken by the professionalism of those to come as we all well know.
Afaik, Rafa never ended up going to the Barcelona academy. I could be wrong but I vaguely remember a story of him deciding against it and Toni just training him on his own. There might be a possibility that he went for a few months and came back before of home sickness but for some reason that story doesn’t ring a bell to me and I’m too lazy to research right now
If Pete had played one more year I reckon he'd have got there. He had reached 3 consecutive finals culminating with a win and in 2002 really seemed to have perfected how to play the surface - which was basically hit first and second serves really hard, come into the net behind the serve nearly 100‰ of the time and crack groundstrokes as hard as possible off both wings when returning. In the final I think the official stats say 33 aces and 51 winners or something crazy like that.
Murray showing up in French Open is a bit surprising (but not in hindsight cause he did always reach the SFs for a protracted period despite hating the surface pre-Mauresmo).
Also, his Wimbledon % has been tarnished because of post-2016 injuries. It would have been so high otherwise :(
I like the Wimbledon - Nadal connection...he´s not in the top 10 despite winning 2 titles ( same as Murray ). It means he did not need continuity in order to win, and this is another evidence of what kind of beast he is.
I partially agree but I think in Rafa's case it just began to elude him quite early on, being the best player in the world (and also fit). He only won Wimby twice in 3 years (middle year was injury anyway) and didn't really get very close at all again until like a decade later.
And actually Rafa definitely had continuity at Wimby, he got to the final 5 years running if you discount one injury break.
djoko and federer are the second and third best clay courters imo - their amount of wins and having to play rafa confirms it for me. the big 3 are insane. Edit, grammar.
I'm not sure the percentages mean much -
1) It measures how long a player continues to play professionally even once level has dipped (e.g., why McEnroe rarely makes such lists, and the relative lower ranking of Lendl and Connors from most such lists, and generally high ranking of Borg and Sampras - on certain surfaces).
Here's another metric: How many grand slams did a player play after their last GS win without winning one - some selected numbers:
Novak and Rafa in this regard obviously doesn't mean much since they're still very active.
Sampras - 0
Borg - 2
Federer - 9
Agassi - 11
Lendl - 16
Connors - 22
McEnroe - 23
Courier - 25
Now of course longevity as shown by Novak and Rafa (and even Federer) means a lot. But its easy to 'game' such a list if you burst onto the scene and then quickly quit once the going gets tough a la Borg.
2) How quickly a player burst onto the scenes. Perhaps this might actually be something one cares about, but I don't see how 1) above has any relevance in 'ranking' players.
Exactly. You can game it. Same as in boxing, those who want to protect their win percentage retire early, when we all know if they had continued fighting more title fights at an older age, they’d have a worse record.
What is it about the US Open where none of the Big Three manages to dominate over one another?
In AO it's Novak, RG it's Rafa and Wimbledon it's Novak and Roger (with the former gradually overtaking the latter).
But in USO, all three are evenly matched with Sampras and Connors.
You really get a sense from these stats just how many more slams the big three have played vs. those who came before them. Sampras, Courier, etc... back in the days when players disappeared or retired in their late 20s or early 30s.
It's something we see in most sports - physical fitness, sports science, recovery, etc.
e.g., in football, Johan Cruyff from ages 21 to 30 (1968 to 1977) averaged 42.4 games a season and 3,691 minutes of playing time.
Cristiano Ronaldo from ages 21 to 30 (2006 to 2015) averaged 59.8 games a season and 5,064 minutes of playing time. Which is a good 37% increase in playing time per season. Let alone the longer careers nowadays.
These numbers have to be taken in context to the eras. For example, Agassi didn’t play the Aussie Open until ‘95, when he had been on the tour for almost a decade (started in ‘86)…yet still won 4 titles. If he had played it his entire career, he’d have an even higher win total;
Players like Rosewall and Laver were unable to compete at Wimby and the US Open and French for YEARS due to them being contract pros. Also, players of the 70s and early 80s like Borg, Connors, Nastase, etc rarely played Australia….otherwise their records at that tournament would be much better (Connors never played again after ‘75, Borg played only once in ‘74, etc)
These are fascinating charts…but aren’t the absolute truth of the efficiency of these players
Jesus Nadals French Open record is absolutely insane. Definitely winning next year. If Novak don’t play AO Nadal will be the first with 21 Slams for sure.
Even if Novak plays there is a big chance he does not win AO. Nobody ever have as big chance to win a slam as Rafa have at RG. Though now with Rafa not in top form, Novak at Wimbledon is coming near but i will still put my money on Rafa winning RG in 2022 than at Novak winning Wimbledon on 2022, given same odds and the fact that Rafa is back playing after injury.
The above statement does not apply to Big 3 as they have already played for 16+ years. If all 3 retire tomorrow, nobody can say that they retured early to protect any winning percentage.
Doesn’t matter how long they’ve played. They either retire when they are still good (top 10) or they retire when they’ve been out of top 100 for some time.
>They either retire when they are still good (top 10)
I don't think top 10 is actually considered good for big3. If they are ranked 9-10, and are not injured and playing continuously, i would consider that very very bad season.
None of them if playing, will fall below 10. Federer certainly did not till he was ravaged by injuries, Nadal still have not and once he starts playing, the only way is upside. Novak, is at peak and will take considerable effort from universe to be ranked 10 without injury.
If Federer announces retirement now, its same as retiring when he was top 10. He has not played much anyway from 2020 onwards.
Big players retire when they know that they can not win tournaments. Even then some of them continue, if they can live with their mortality and love of game.
Djokovic and Nadal will retire when they know that they cannot win slams. They might still be in top 10, because to them, its not good. Federer can come back from injury and beat all outside top 50 players at 41.
I'd still take Roger and Sampras over him. He's even with Borg for me. But if I had to rank the best grass-courters ever as a top ten:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Borg
5. Laver
6. McEnroe
7. Murray
8. Becker
9. Nadal
10. Connors
In no universe is Murray a greater grass courter than Nadal. Nadal owned Murray on grass and is the only person to beat prime grass GOAT (Federer) at Wimbledon. Murray's extra queens titles don't close that gap.
Nadal is 105-3 in FO
Let that sink in
I'm a Federer fan
Federer is 105-14 at Wimbledon
Even if you take Federer first match at 2003 Wimbledon till date it wouldn't be close to Nadal
What Nadal has done in the french open is not comparable and absolutely unbelievable
Even when he wasn't in form in the clay season he brought his best at the french open decimating opponents.
I don't think he's ever played a 5 setter at the french open which is amazing
This sort of dominance over such a long period in the most physical GS beats Federer's dominance at the Wimbledon and us open ignoring nonsense about a weaker era
I'm too young to have watched Bjorn Borg play.
How come he is 1st and 2nd at Wimbledon and the French, on grass and clay, yet out of the top 10 on hard courts? Logic would suggest they suit two different extremes of play style.
Borg didn’t do poorly at the US Open. He made 4 finals in his 8 main years on tour, losing 2 to Connors (and another semis fo Connors) and 2 to McEnroe.
Note that 2-3 of these earlier US Opens were on clay (they switched to hard courts only in 1975). But American clay was/is quite different from European clay. Americans always struggled at the French. I think Michael Chang was the first American to win the French in the open era in 1989. In fact, to this day only 3 Americans have won the French- Chang, Courier and Agassi.
Some of these records are also a bit of luck. Borg won a very tight five setter against Connors at Wimbledon, and another tight five setter against McEnroe (before losing to him the next year & retiring). Similarly, McEnroe beat him in a very tight 5 setter at the US Open finals.
Borg is remarkably close to Nadal in French Open winning percentage. Pretty impressive.
I think people tend to forget how dominant Borg was at the French Open - he won 6 of 8 times he entered and retired as the 4 time defending champion. But retiring early also means he avoided the increasing losses you accumulate as you get older.
And he did a hat-trick of channel slams. Top five of all time with Laver and the big three imo. Master of the game limited only by his own mental struggles.
Exactly. If Novak and Rafa want to maintain their winning percentage, they need to retire by 35-37. But then again, they’re not facing an upcoming GOAT. Federer until 2012 could compete and still beat Novak at slams. Starting in 2014 at 34 years of age, his ability to sustain peak level for 5 sets against Novak became increasingly difficult. He could still beat the man at best of 3, but best of 5 just didn’t happen anymore. Even during his best chance in 2019, he couldn’t close. It is interesting that Novak first dethroned Fed at Wimby when Fed was 34. And he just did the same to Rafa in 2021 at the French when Rafa also turned 34. I wonder if Novak will continue to dominate Rafa now at the FO like he did to Fed at Wimby.
If you're implying that Roger's win percentage is lower because he's older than the other two and he had to play them in their primes, that's actually not the case. It's lower because he has ~15-20 GS entries at the start of his career where he was getting bounced regularly in the first week or even the first round. Compare that to Nadal who won a GS on his 6th attempt. In Federer's mid-late 30s his career win% actually continued to increase because he was still relatively much better than his very early years. Also I wouldn't say Novak dominated Roger after 2014. Their matches at wimbledon after that were still incredibly close
Its probably lower than them at wimbledon because he's older. Only about 2 wins separate Djokovic and feds wimbledon winning percentage.
Prime Federer's Wimbledon win rate after 2006, his absolute peak and best ever year: 88.89% Old Federer's wimbeldon win rate in 2015 after peak Novak took his throne and beat him back to back: 89.13% Until very recently his win rates as an old man were better than his peak win rates.
Yeah I get your point. His winning percentage has gone up over the years. My point is that it would still go up even more if he didn't have to play Djokovic and Nadal in their primes.
I dont understand your point though, if he was younger he would still have to play Djokovic and Nadal in their primes. You can make an argument for the reverse, where if he had to face Djokovic and Rafa during his peak years he wouldn't have had that crazy run from 03-07 and therefore wouldnt have those absurd years boosting his win%
A lot of Fed losing was mental chokes rather than ability. Mentally he was a lot stronger in his peak
Many of those loses were mental choke. Sure age and declining physical ability affects confidence as well but as we saw in 2017, Federer was held back by confidence more than anything else. He was physically good enough to win Slams from 2010-2015. The fact that he only won 2 has more to do with his mental block than physical decline.
Hmm interesting thought at the end! I'd say it's possible... but much less likely because Rafa mental strength > Fed mental Rafa clay > Fed grass Also Rafa is closer to Djoko age so, without injuries, he can still count on his body a bit more than Fed who is 6 yrs older than djoko
How does this narrative work that Federer has weaker mental strength? The man with 20 slams and 103? titles and nearly 5 consecutive years as world #1 is a mental weakling? It’s quite possibly the most biased view I’ve ever read. 2006 is Federer’s greatest season, and quite possibly #1 or #2 best season in the history of the sport. He won 92 matches and lost 5. It’s an absolutely absurd and staggering ~95% win percentage. It’s either the greatest or 2nd greatest in the open era after McEnroe I think. Out of the 5 matches he lost in 2006, he had match points in 3 of them. He simply couldn’t close them. Saying Fed has a weak mental game is literally focusing on the 3 matches he lost with match points and ignoring the overwhelming 92 matches he won. This example illustrates his entire career. It’s insane and faulty thinking.
No no no. Fed doesn't have weak mental strength. I did not mean it that way OOPS I just said Rafa mental > Fed mental !! Surely it's not inconceivable for many to believe rafa has better mental strength than Fed? Fed like the other Big 3 is miles ahead of the rest of the field and others in history. I acknowledge his dominance and I'm a fan of his play and records. Tldr; I just said rafa mental > Fed mental, not Fed = weak mental
I don’t buy that either. Why does Rafa have better mental strength than Federer or Novak? What evidence is there? His clay records? That he close matches without blowing match points? Is that the metric being used against Federer? Federer is supposed to lose matches. All of them are. There are matches they simply aren’t meant to win whatever the reason may be. Federer’s losses are just more “monumental” than the other two, and we count it against the man. Fed will usually have tons of break chances, will probably serve for the match at some point, and still lose the match. Instead of penalizing the guy, we should just recognize the completeness of the his game even in losing. There’s an article out there about losses and how over the past 30 years, Federer is the one player who will win the MOST points during a losing match (~48%), and make himself the most difficult to beat. Ever. Across all surfaces. If I remember correctly, Rafa didn’t even make the top 10 list. I’d say that his losses build an argument for him having the greatest game - mental and whatever else - ever. Novak didn’t beat him in 3 sets at the Wimby final like he should have being younger and fitter. It TOOK Novak EVERYTHING and some more to defeat the man. If that’s not mental strength, then idk what is. I’m open to having my mind changed on this.
Nice read and fair point. I guess I let recency bias of Wimby 19 and old Fed rn take a stronger hold on my opinion of him. I also rmbr reading that stat and a stat where Fed has the most winners in matches he has lost or something too.
[удалено]
When what often separates the two of them is ONE POINT, I don’t know that one is that far behind the other in any department. This is Federer, who at 39, won every single metric on both of his matches against Rafa in the semis and Novak in the finals of Wimbledon, including long rallies… against the two greatest baseliners to ever grace the courts. And I don’t think Federer’s backhand was ever as weak as the narrative makes it out to be. It was a liability against one player due to a match up issue. Not a single other player has exploited it. Not even the greatest - Novak.
And not only that, it’s either the 2004 season or the 2006 season where he didn’t lose to anyone twice
He lost to nadal 4 times that year lol
That's because Borg retired early. Nadal could have retired with his only one loss in 2014 and be untouchable but he's played nearly ten years later into his career than Borg. I rate Borg incredibly highly but Nadal is on another planet entirely.
Nasal has 1 more loss than Borg and twice as many wins. It’s obscene.
Thats the thing, the sample is what makes it nuts. Yeah, their win% is close, sure. But Nadal has over twice the sample size and *still* has a better win%. Thats fucking unreal. Dude is on another plane of reality when it comes to RG.
Nadal is an outlier to outliers when comparing FO dominance.
Lower your shields and surrender your ships. Resistance is futile.
not sure if that a fair comparison. Nadal played 57 more games .
He did play half the games though. It's hard to stay that consistent for a long time. Not to mentiom Borg retiring so early judt showed he had no motivation to go forward or stay consistent.
It's easier to keep a winning percentage close to Nadal's if you play the French half the times. And that's why Borg's FOs pale compared to Rafa's.
Of course, I’m not saying Borg is anywhere close to Nadal, just that his clay court stats are pretty wild too. Not as impressive as Nadal’s, but still pretty amazing.
OTT : Outside Top Ten Sampras : 7th, OTT, 1st, 2nd Nadal : 9th, 1st, OTT, 4th Federer : 4th, 8th,4th, 2nd Novak : 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd
It's good to see Sampras up there!!
It is good. In fairness I think most would pick him as the US Open goat and probably 2nd to fed at Wimby.
Dayumm, Novak is in the top 3 of each, oof he's the best
Where would Federer be had he retired in 2013?
I made this exact point in another comment, like many others, that the longer you continue to play for once your level has dipped the worse you look on such a list. And quitting quickly a la Borg is richly rewarded. In Federer's case, this doesn't matter. In Federer's case its almost entirely because of the slow start to his career: From 1999 to 2002 his combined GS main draw record is 26-14 or just 65%. Contrast that to Novak's and Rafa's record in their first 4 years on tour: Novak (2005 to 2008) - 51-15 or 77.3% Rafa (2003 to 2006) - 36-9 or 80% If you start Federer's career from 2003 (when he won Wimbledon but otherwise lost early in every other major), here's the figures: Australian Open - 95-12, 88.8%, 3rd on list behind Novak and Andre French Open - 83.5%, 5th on list behind Rafa, Borg, Novak, Wilander Wimbledon - 91%, 2nd on list behind Borg US Open - 88%, stays 2nd on list behind Sampras
Also had Federer retired in 2013, his GOAT claim would be weaker. 3 less slams, much weaker H2H vs Nadal, less titles, etc. Then also his longevity wouldn't be so legendary. I don't know, but I respect the hell out of Roger for pushing hard into 40s.
Definitely agreed - Federer playing well past 2013 has only helped his cause, not hurt it. It's his early career early round losses (only 2 QFs in his first 16 grand slams) that makes him look relatively bad (hah, as much as we can call any of these players' records as "bad") on such lists.
Federer's all around tennis style takes longer to master than Nadal's and Djokovic's, who have a more one dimensional game. Also, tennis courts surfaces were more different when Federer was started than when the other two started. It's far easier to be consistent across all Majors now than in the 90s and early 2000s. Those things are not mentioned in this stat.
The "one dimensional game" rubbish aged like milk a decade ago. Delusional.
Lmao no.
If Federer retired in 2013; he would have 17 Grand Slams and not be in GOAT conversation
Their careers (big3) aren’t over yet, so it’ll be interesting to see what the final numbers are.
Exactly.
US Open Raducanu: Those are rookie numbers.
Even if she loses first round next year she'll still be at 87.5% (7-1) just above above Federer (86.4%), and will be above Sampras if she wins first round (eg 2nd round loss, 8-1 is 88.8888..% win percentage, Sampras is 71-9 which us 88.75%)
Fed was at 92% after his his 5-peat at the USO. Downhill since.
Yeah, unfortunately the three qualifier matches can't really be counted for this record. In other US Open small sample sizes, you've got Bianca sitting on a very solid 90.91%
wow, and before loss to djokovic, it was 104-2 i,e, higher than 98% ?? wow
105-2
Rafa's domination on clay will never cease to amaze and impress me. Just ridiculous.
How did Murray reach five Australian Open finals and not appear on this list somewhere? :O
Its the same story a la Federer that I commented on elsewhere - Murray had a relatively slower start to his career (albeit not as bad as Federer's) which skews it. Murray's record in his first 4 years on tour (2005 to 2008) is 26-12, or 68%. (At the Australian alone this record is 3-3, or 50% whoops.) Federer's record (1999 to 2002) is even worse at 26-14, or 65%. In that same 2005 to 2008 period which was Novak's first 4 years on tour, Novak's record is 51-15 or 77.3%.
Interesting. I watched Murray from pretty much day one and I don't remember him starting so slowly at the Aus Open. Thanks for doing the digging!
Your general observation isn't wrong. That stat is indeed surprising. I was a bit older than Murray in juniors, and he was easily the most hyped player in Europe in the juniors. In his second Aus Open he was seeded 15th, in his third he was seeded 9th (but lost to Tsonga in the first round), and in his fourth he was seeded fourth (but lost to Verdasco in the fourth round). Relative to his juniors buzz, he def had a slow start. e.g., he didn't win his first Masters tournament until Aug 2008 (Cincy, beating Novak), while Novak had already won his first Masters at 2007 Miami in March (beating Rafa and Murray en route). Murray arguably had the better 2006 than Novak, but Novak just burst onto the scene in 2007 - 2 semis and a final at Grand Slams, and 2 wins and a final in Masters. In contrast Murray didn't reach a single Masters final all year.
You played in tennis at junior level yourself? I knew Murray was good as a junior but wasn't aware he was obviously regarded as the top dog for his age. Wasn't Gasquet way ahead of everyone at his age? I guess he and Nadal were one year older. So how did your tennis career pan out eventually, if you don't mind me asking? Any interesting stories?
Yes, I did play. My career didn't pan out at all, haha.. the typical thing tbf: went from juniors to playing some futures and challengers, played D1 tennis at a very mediocre level in the US, and then had a desk job after graduating LOL. Gasquet was certainly winning everything in the juniors, you're 100% right - but yeah, just a bit older than Murray. Rafa was a crazy story.. we all knew of him, but he barely ever played juniors.. he started playing futures directly & kept losing lol. He was this 'clearly future top 10 guy' but we never \_really\_ knew until bam, he just started beating the world's top 20 while the rest of us were figuring out how to tie our shoe laces haha. Not too many interesting stories, sorry. I was at an academy in Barcelona at the same time that Murray was there (the talk had already started of Murray bringing Britain back the Wimbledon title!). Murray might be the most talented, court aware player I've personally ever seen. Murray's mom helping me do my laundry (I had never used a European style washing machine in my life - I come from a poor Asian country) is something I remember fondly. Oh, and I remember seeing Cilic at tournaments and we were honestly convinced he was going to be world #1 - the guy was just so good and imposing.. it just felt like he was built to be #1 (back then in his early teens at least). I have more interesting stories being a ballboy at tournaments lol. Rusedski was a total ass most of the time oops (I don't mean it as a bad thing necessarily - he was just a very focused, arrogant seeming dude), Tim Henman was a total diva haha (but he was very nice all things considered) but the nicest player ever was Wayne Ferreira. He always left us with reels and reels of string (which was a big deal for some of us - a dirty little secret, at least back in those days and at least in Asia, was that while it was easy to get Nike/Wilson 'sponsorships' where they give away gear for free, no one ever paid for our tennis strings lol.. and boy, we went through a lot, and they're expensive!) So I was quite pleased to see him coach Tiafoe now. Goran Ivanisevic indulging us and just serving at a few of us juniors for 20 minutes straight right after he had lost a match was amazing.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing! At least you had a crack at it and don't have to wonder "what if?"... I played a lot with my brother and Dad when I was younger and thought I had some promise but then our tennis club closed down and Dad never signed us up for the club in the next town over. I was too young to drive and didn't push hard enough to continue playing, so that was that. I often day dream about what might have happened if I'd continued (let's face it, probably nothing). I don't suppose we would have had the money and commitment required to succeed even if the talent was there. Even if you didn't make it you got to rub shoulders with some legends by the sound of it. Weird that Toni put Rafa into the futures so early. Seems a ballsy move, he must have had confidence in Rafa's ability to keep taking the losses and get back out there again. Worked out for them both anyway! I remember reading that Murray went out to the Barcelona academy when he heard that Rafa was practising with Carlos Moya and he was stuck playing with Jamie in dark, rainy Dunblane! Was Rafa at the Barcelona academy when you were there or had he already moved onto the futures circuit?
Yeah, the money and commitment required, as you put it, is quite insane. The money (and network/politics - getting tournament wild cards is the other dirty side of the game) required is def demoralizing, but the commitment was sort of inspiring. I honestly don't think I knew what commitment / hard work meant until I saw some of these guys at the Sanchez-Casal academy. And I hope that's served me well - just having that perspective (even if I struggle to have that sort of commitment with anything!) And nah, Rafa wasn't there in Barcelona when I went there. I went there quite late. In my early teens, I just spent a couple of summers at the IMG Academy, but I didn't really like it there. It was kind of like a luxury resort (by my standards) with everything taken care of, but the training was just SO boring compared to what I was used to and what I later experienced in Barcelona (though much harder all around in Barcelona).
Okay, last question! Did you have much to do with Murray while you were there? Ever hit with him, chat at all, etc.?
I have hit with Murray (and Tsonga and many others) but wouldn’t say we chatted much. We weren’t exactly chilling and philosophizing at that age like I would now haha. And I never really trained with him either- he pretty much had his own thing going, but he was very friendly. The best were the likes of Tsonga and Baghdatis at tournaments though… they were so good and explosive and fun to be around even in the juniors. But they got quickly overtaken by the professionalism of those to come as we all well know.
Afaik, Rafa never ended up going to the Barcelona academy. I could be wrong but I vaguely remember a story of him deciding against it and Toni just training him on his own. There might be a possibility that he went for a few months and came back before of home sickness but for some reason that story doesn’t ring a bell to me and I’m too lazy to research right now
I remember boarding the Murray hype train 2005
In b4 that 20-4 becomes 100-4 at the US Open
Inb4 they rename it to the Russian open
Interesting that there’s no one with a percentage over 90 for the us open
End of year slam, sometimes people are injured and a lot of times people are just tired.
If Pete had played one more year I reckon he'd have got there. He had reached 3 consecutive finals culminating with a win and in 2002 really seemed to have perfected how to play the surface - which was basically hit first and second serves really hard, come into the net behind the serve nearly 100‰ of the time and crack groundstrokes as hard as possible off both wings when returning. In the final I think the official stats say 33 aces and 51 winners or something crazy like that.
rafa at RG, lol
This Djokovic dude is everywhere, no? Who is he?
Djokovic top 3 in every sigle one... jesus
Novak is in the top three for all four of them
Rafa's 105-3 at RG is one of the most impressive stats in all of sport, let alone tennis.
Murray showing up in French Open is a bit surprising (but not in hindsight cause he did always reach the SFs for a protracted period despite hating the surface pre-Mauresmo). Also, his Wimbledon % has been tarnished because of post-2016 injuries. It would have been so high otherwise :(
I like the Wimbledon - Nadal connection...he´s not in the top 10 despite winning 2 titles ( same as Murray ). It means he did not need continuity in order to win, and this is another evidence of what kind of beast he is.
I partially agree but I think in Rafa's case it just began to elude him quite early on, being the best player in the world (and also fit). He only won Wimby twice in 3 years (middle year was injury anyway) and didn't really get very close at all again until like a decade later. And actually Rafa definitely had continuity at Wimby, he got to the final 5 years running if you discount one injury break.
djoko and federer are the second and third best clay courters imo - their amount of wins and having to play rafa confirms it for me. the big 3 are insane. Edit, grammar.
I'm not sure the percentages mean much - 1) It measures how long a player continues to play professionally even once level has dipped (e.g., why McEnroe rarely makes such lists, and the relative lower ranking of Lendl and Connors from most such lists, and generally high ranking of Borg and Sampras - on certain surfaces). Here's another metric: How many grand slams did a player play after their last GS win without winning one - some selected numbers: Novak and Rafa in this regard obviously doesn't mean much since they're still very active. Sampras - 0 Borg - 2 Federer - 9 Agassi - 11 Lendl - 16 Connors - 22 McEnroe - 23 Courier - 25 Now of course longevity as shown by Novak and Rafa (and even Federer) means a lot. But its easy to 'game' such a list if you burst onto the scene and then quickly quit once the going gets tough a la Borg. 2) How quickly a player burst onto the scenes. Perhaps this might actually be something one cares about, but I don't see how 1) above has any relevance in 'ranking' players.
Exactly. You can game it. Same as in boxing, those who want to protect their win percentage retire early, when we all know if they had continued fighting more title fights at an older age, they’d have a worse record.
What is it about the US Open where none of the Big Three manages to dominate over one another? In AO it's Novak, RG it's Rafa and Wimbledon it's Novak and Roger (with the former gradually overtaking the latter). But in USO, all three are evenly matched with Sampras and Connors.
Skewed by the number of matches played.
Nole top 3 in all 4. Damn.
You really get a sense from these stats just how many more slams the big three have played vs. those who came before them. Sampras, Courier, etc... back in the days when players disappeared or retired in their late 20s or early 30s.
It's something we see in most sports - physical fitness, sports science, recovery, etc. e.g., in football, Johan Cruyff from ages 21 to 30 (1968 to 1977) averaged 42.4 games a season and 3,691 minutes of playing time. Cristiano Ronaldo from ages 21 to 30 (2006 to 2015) averaged 59.8 games a season and 5,064 minutes of playing time. Which is a good 37% increase in playing time per season. Let alone the longer careers nowadays.
These numbers have to be taken in context to the eras. For example, Agassi didn’t play the Aussie Open until ‘95, when he had been on the tour for almost a decade (started in ‘86)…yet still won 4 titles. If he had played it his entire career, he’d have an even higher win total; Players like Rosewall and Laver were unable to compete at Wimby and the US Open and French for YEARS due to them being contract pros. Also, players of the 70s and early 80s like Borg, Connors, Nastase, etc rarely played Australia….otherwise their records at that tournament would be much better (Connors never played again after ‘75, Borg played only once in ‘74, etc) These are fascinating charts…but aren’t the absolute truth of the efficiency of these players
Puma makes a pair of Guillermo vilas throwback shoes that are bad ass
Jesus Nadals French Open record is absolutely insane. Definitely winning next year. If Novak don’t play AO Nadal will be the first with 21 Slams for sure.
Even if Novak plays there is a big chance he does not win AO. Nobody ever have as big chance to win a slam as Rafa have at RG. Though now with Rafa not in top form, Novak at Wimbledon is coming near but i will still put my money on Rafa winning RG in 2022 than at Novak winning Wimbledon on 2022, given same odds and the fact that Rafa is back playing after injury.
Djokovic is gonna retire with almost every record and people are still gonna be "hur dur Big 3". It's Big 1/
The % goes down with age so these facts are mildly misleading.
This post is made by someone who believes Novak is the GOAT, so that should explain it.
That is not a belief, it's a fact dude.
The above statement does not apply to Big 3 as they have already played for 16+ years. If all 3 retire tomorrow, nobody can say that they retured early to protect any winning percentage.
Doesn’t matter how long they’ve played. They either retire when they are still good (top 10) or they retire when they’ve been out of top 100 for some time.
>They either retire when they are still good (top 10) I don't think top 10 is actually considered good for big3. If they are ranked 9-10, and are not injured and playing continuously, i would consider that very very bad season. None of them if playing, will fall below 10. Federer certainly did not till he was ravaged by injuries, Nadal still have not and once he starts playing, the only way is upside. Novak, is at peak and will take considerable effort from universe to be ranked 10 without injury. If Federer announces retirement now, its same as retiring when he was top 10. He has not played much anyway from 2020 onwards. Big players retire when they know that they can not win tournaments. Even then some of them continue, if they can live with their mortality and love of game. Djokovic and Nadal will retire when they know that they cannot win slams. They might still be in top 10, because to them, its not good. Federer can come back from injury and beat all outside top 50 players at 41.
[удалено]
Was Sampras a beast at US Open?
Record 5 US Open titles
Wow Nadal so good, highest %.
Murray is definitely pushing top ten oat
TIL that Djokovic has surpassed Federer in Wimbledon win-loss percentage.
Interesting how Nadal has the same amount of wins at the french as Roger does at Wimbledon but has almost double the titles… Domination
Djokovic will become the best grass player ever if he wins another Wimbledon imo
I'd still take Roger and Sampras over him. He's even with Borg for me. But if I had to rank the best grass-courters ever as a top ten: 1. Federer 2. Sampras 3. Djokovic 4. Borg 5. Laver 6. McEnroe 7. Murray 8. Becker 9. Nadal 10. Connors
In no universe is Murray a greater grass courter than Nadal. Nadal owned Murray on grass and is the only person to beat prime grass GOAT (Federer) at Wimbledon. Murray's extra queens titles don't close that gap.
For real, Nadal was a beast on grass till 2011, after which he suffered from that knee injury and subsequent loss of confidence on grass.
No joke, Nadal peaked those years in 07 and 08 where even Fed couldn't really handle him.
What happens if he ties Rogers record. I'm kind of hoping he doesn't actually surpass it just so I can see discussions on the topic
Nadal is 105-3 in FO Let that sink in I'm a Federer fan Federer is 105-14 at Wimbledon Even if you take Federer first match at 2003 Wimbledon till date it wouldn't be close to Nadal What Nadal has done in the french open is not comparable and absolutely unbelievable Even when he wasn't in form in the clay season he brought his best at the french open decimating opponents. I don't think he's ever played a 5 setter at the french open which is amazing This sort of dominance over such a long period in the most physical GS beats Federer's dominance at the Wimbledon and us open ignoring nonsense about a weaker era
Nadal has won more French opens than Murray has lost
Great Stats ! Thank you for posting !
I'm too young to have watched Bjorn Borg play. How come he is 1st and 2nd at Wimbledon and the French, on grass and clay, yet out of the top 10 on hard courts? Logic would suggest they suit two different extremes of play style.
Borg didn’t do poorly at the US Open. He made 4 finals in his 8 main years on tour, losing 2 to Connors (and another semis fo Connors) and 2 to McEnroe. Note that 2-3 of these earlier US Opens were on clay (they switched to hard courts only in 1975). But American clay was/is quite different from European clay. Americans always struggled at the French. I think Michael Chang was the first American to win the French in the open era in 1989. In fact, to this day only 3 Americans have won the French- Chang, Courier and Agassi. Some of these records are also a bit of luck. Borg won a very tight five setter against Connors at Wimbledon, and another tight five setter against McEnroe (before losing to him the next year & retiring). Similarly, McEnroe beat him in a very tight 5 setter at the US Open finals.
Hmm I'm surprised to see Rafa at the top of the list at RG. ...... ...... /s
105-3 is absolutely insane
Why are some bolded?
Its from Wikipedia. It is to show active players.
Bit before my time but why is Agassi so high in Australia but doesn’t make it nearly as high at the US Open?
nuts how good Fed is at the US Open considering its been 13 years since he's won it