Multi-Slam Seasons (and historical precendents)

[El Dude]

I was thinking about Rafa's chances of winning a second Slam this year, and was curious about the historical precedent. I compiled a list of all multi-Slam season in the Open Era, with the age of the players at the time they won the Slams. Here's the list...

(Note: normal face is for two-Slam years, bold is for three-Slam years, and bold capitals is...well, Rod Laver)

1969 – ROD LAVER (30-31)
1973 – John Newcombe (28-29)
1974 – Jimmy Connors (21-22)
1977 – Guillermo Vilas (24-25)
1978 – Bjorn Borg (21-22)
1979 – Bjorn Borg (22-23)
1980 – Bjorn Borg (23-24)
1981 – John McEnroe (22)
1982 – Jimmy Connors (29-30)
1984 – John McEnroe (25)
1986 – Ivan Lendl (26)
1987 – Ivan Lendl (27)
1988 – Mats Wilander (23-24)
1989 – Boris Becker (21)
1992 – Jim Courier (21)
1993 – Pete Sampras (21-22)
1994 – Pete Sampras (22)
1995 – Pete Sampras (23-24)
1997 – Pete Sampras (25)
1999 – Andre Agassi (29)
2004 – Roger Federer (22-23)
2005 – Roger Federer (23-24)
2006 – Roger Federer (24-25)
2007 – Roger Federer (25-26)
2008 – Rafael Nadal (22)
2009 – Roger Federer (27)
2010 – Rafael Nadal (24)
2011 – Novak Djokovic (23-24)
2013 – Rafael Nadal (27)

A few comments. First of all, it is a good remember just how rare the three-Slam season is. In 46 years of the Open Era, it has been done only eight times (including Laver's four) - three of those by Roger Federer, the only player who has done it more than once. That said, two-Slam seasons aren't that rare. In those 46 years, it has been done 29 times. In other words, more often than not, someone wins at least two Slams in any given year.

Now about about older players winning two or more? Rafa turned 28 a few days before the end of his victory at Roland Garros, so is 28 for the remainder of the year. How many players age 28 or older have won multiple Slams in a year? Only four: Laver in '69 (age 30-31), Newcombe in '73 (28-29), Connors in '82 (29-30), and Agassi in '99 (29). Roger never did it. He won Slams at age 28 (Australian Open in 2010) and 30 (Wimbledon in 2012), but never two after age 28. Neither did Sampras.

Actually, it is worth pointing out that Roger has only won two Slams at Rafa's age or older. When he won Wimbledon in 2009 he was just about a month younger than Rafa was at Roland Garros this year, but if we're technical he's only got two to Rafa's one, so it seems likely that Rafa will have a more successful age 28+ career than Roger has, given that Rafa is likely to win more than one more Slam.

Anyhow, if Rafa wins the US Open he'll not only become only the fifth 28+ year old in the Open Ea to win two Slams at his age, but he'll have done something Roger hasn't done. It also points to just how difficult it is to remain so dominant at his age.

 

[Federberg]

Nice post Dude. And a slap in the face to those of us who thought Rafa would not do as well as Roger has in his later years Impressive!

 

[El Dude]

Nice post Dude. And a slap in the face to those of us who thought Rafa would not do as well as Roger has in his later years Impressive!

No doubt, although to be fair, after thoroughly dominating his peers, Roger had to deal with three young upstarts by the name of Rafa, Novak, and Andy, while Rafa mainly has to deal with his peers with no equivalents to three young upstarts. Milos, Grigor and Jerzy? :lolz:

This *not* to get in a Fedal debate, but as I and others have noted, the decline of Rafa, Novak and Andy might be a bit slowed by the fact that there are no new elite players rising up - at least not of their calibre.

But yeah, Rafa looks strong at an age which many thought he'd start slowing considerably. If he's slowing, it is small and relatively controlled.