Which Grand Slam records will fall?

[mightyjeditribble]

Fed owns all the following records at Grand slam level (in men's singles). I'm listing his record, the one in second place (retired or not), as well as Nadal & Djokovic.

Total titles: Fed 18 ; Nadal, Sampras 14, Djokovic 12.

Total finals: Fed 28; Nadal, Djokovic 21.

Total SF: Fed 41; Connors, Djokovic 31.

Total QF: Fed 49; Connors 41, Djokovic 37.

Total GS match wins: Fed 314; Connors 233, Djokovic 229.

(As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men's_singles#Grand_Slam_tournaments .)

Eventually, all records are meant to be broken, but do we think Nadal or Djokovic will have a chance to overtake any of these? I suppose on the face of it QF/SF don't seem impossible if Novak is motivated by Fed's success to continue playing for a long time, and keeps up a high level. But of course Roger is likely to still add to those numbers also!

 

[Front242]

No one is going to win 9 French Opens anytime soon! Or 7 Wimbledons or 5 consecutive US Opens. These are all gonna last quite some time. Nadal and Federer have of course the chance to add to those this year. Likewise holding all 4 slams (Novak) isn't likely to be repeated for quite a while. It'll take a hybrid beast with massive height, serve and movement and these don't usually go together.

 

[Front242]

The homogenization of courts of course made it an easier task than during the Borg era but it's still mighty tough. At least they're on the right track speeding up on the AO again. Roger and his fans say thanks

Typing on phones sucks. So many typos.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm surprised Djoker has been in that many QF's and semis already. He could get there if he ages very well. The window for either Djoker or Nadal to get to 7 more finals figures to be rapidly closing. One of them would have to go on a total tear over the next couple years.

 

[El Dude]

This inspired me to make a couple of charts.

First we have cumulative QFs by year:

Next we have cumulative QFs by age (their actual age, not the year-end age):

Now I could do charts for SF, Finals, and Wins, but let's just start with QFs. A QF is particularly important because it is the beginning of the second week - it is the championship rounds or "playoffs" within the tournament. The point being, if these guys make it to the QF, they have a chance of winning it.

Both paint a similar picture, but the second one is particularly interesting in that it shows how Novak and Rafa blossomed a bit earlier, with Roger a bit behind in terms of reaching QFs. Rafa started on a slightly better pace then Novak, then Novak caught up and finally passed him at age 26 when Rafa started having more frequent injury problems. Roger was very steady, finally passing Rafa's pace at age 29. Novak is still on the strongest pace, although he's started to slow down: after six years in a row of 4 QFs, he's been in 2 of 4 since turning 29.

Looking at these charts, the obvious question is: how long can Novak sustain a 3-4 QF per year pace? How long can Roger? And can Rafa comeback and make QFs on a more regular basis?

It is highly unlikely that Rafa will catch either Novak or Roger in QFs, but Novak has a chance of catching Roger. But it would require two things: One, Roger would have to taper off rather quickly and retire in a year or two, and Novak would have to stabilize and be more consistent. Here's a path for Novak to do so:

2017: Roger (age 35-36) is upset early at the FO, but makes the QF or later at Wimbledon and US Open. Novak (age 29-30) makes the remaining three. Year Final: Roger 51, 38.

2018: Roger (36-37) starts showing his age makes only two QFs. Novak (30-31) is resurgent, makes all four. Roger 53, Novak 42.

2019: Roger (37-38) makes only one QF, retires at end of year. Novak (31-32) remains strong at four. Roger 54 (final), Novak 46.

2020: Novak (32-33) slips a bit but makes three. Novak 49.

2021: Ditto. Novak (33-34) 52.

2022: Novak, now 34-35, is showing his age but still performing well, makes two. Novak 54.

2023: Novak, age 35-36, makes one more QF and finishes with 55 for his career.

Now when it is spelled out like that, it makes me think it is very unlikely that Novak will catch Roger in QF appearances...he'd have to do what Roger is doing, which is very, very hard.

 

[El Dude]

Here's one more, depicting their Slams wins and finals.

This really illustrates Roger's dry spell, but also the fact that it was not for lacking in opportunities. His finals pace slowed starting at age 28, but he made at least one final at every age, except for 34 (which is the span from the 2015 US Open through 2016 Wimbledon).

It also shows that Rafa's pace also slowed at age 28, which was the year after his great 2013, when he turned 27.

Now it could be that Novak, for a variety of reasons, is simply a year behind their pace in terms of slowing down - he certainly slowed at age 29, relative to previous years.

 

[mrzz]

^Great analysis, Dude. I voted for the quarters, thinking of Djokovic, but finals are maybe a better bet, given that they are moving targets (and I hope they are ALL still moving targets...).

 

[Fiero425]

Here's one more, depicting their Slams wins and finals.

This really illustrates Roger's dry spell, but also the fact that it was not for lacking in opportunities. His finals pace slowed starting at age 28, but he made at least one final at every age, except for 34 (which is the span from the 2015 US Open through 2016 Wimbledon).

It also shows that Rafa's pace also slowed at age 28, which was the year after his great 2013, when he turned 27.

Now it could be that Novak, for a variety of reasons, is simply a year behind their pace in terms of slowing down - he certainly slowed at age 29, relative to previous years.

Only in this era of the BIG 4 or 5 can you win 2 majors, 4 Masters events, complete a CGS, and wind up looking like you're in a slump! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

Only in this era of the BIG 4 or 5 can you win 2 majors, 4 Masters events, complete a CGS, and wind up looking like you're in a slump! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

That chart is based upon Novak from his 29th birthday on, so only includes RG and one of the Masters. Compare his accomplishments by age, for the last few years:

29: 1 Slam, 1 Masters, 1 ATP 250
28: 3 Slams, WTF, 5 Masters, 1 ATP 500, 1 ATP 250
27: 2 Slams, WTF, 5 Masters, 1 ATP 500

So far, age 29 hasn't looked so good relative to the two years previous, although he can pad his record a bit by winning one or more of the five upcoming Masters that occur before his birthday, which usually falls right after Rome and before RG.

 

[isabelle]

remember Sampras's "fabulous'" record was broken sooner than expected so I guess other's players records could be broken one day, don't know when but records are made to be broken uh ???

 

[mightyjeditribble]

remember Sampras's "fabulous'" record was broken sooner than expected so I guess other's players records could be broken one day, don't know when but records are made to be broken uh ???

Indeed. That's what's fun about this.

Still, I can't help but feel that we are seeing a very, very special tennis generation, the like of which it will take some time to see again. So if Djokovic/Nadal don't grab some of these records before they retire, I'm not so sure I would bet on any of the currently up-and-coming players to do it. Given that it took Fed almost two decades to accumulate them, I guess they'd be likely to stand for a while. But who knows, the next GOAT may just be around the corner!

 

[El Dude]

The next GOAT could be a player we've already heard about. Remember that Roger didn't win his first Slam until he was almost 22 years old. I was only a casual fan of tennis back then, but I'm guessing that in his early years, say 1998-2000, no one was saying "he's going to break all the records." Even once he started looking like a future elite player in 2001-02, no on expected he'd break all the records. It wasn't until he won three Slams in 2004 that people started realizing how good this guy was, and he was already 23 by the end of the year.

This is not to say that the next GOAT is already on the tour, but you just never know. One thing I think we CAN say is that the next all-time great (or two) is PROBABLY already on tour. I think you have to look at players born in 1997 or later, but at least one player in the 1997-2000 range is going to win 6+ Slams, if only by virtue of opportunity. The Big Four won't last forever. The 89-93 group won't be dominant. Zverev is the most likely candidate, but there are a ton of other players to consider - Fritz, Tiafoe, Kozlov, Rublev, Ruud, Mikael Ymer, Shapovalov, De Minaur, Aliassime, etc.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

The next GOAT could be a player we've already heard about. Remember that Roger didn't win his first Slam until he was almost 22 years old. I was only a casual fan of tennis back then, but I'm guessing that in his early years, say 1998-2000, no one was saying "he's going to break all the records." Even once he started looking like a future elite player in 2001-02, no on expected he'd break all the records. It wasn't until he won three Slams in 2004 that people started realizing how good this guy was, and he was already 23 by the end of the year.

This is not to say that the next GOAT is already on the tour, but you just never know. One thing I think we CAN say is that the next all-time great (or two) is PROBABLY already on tour. I think you have to look at players born in 1997 or later, but at least one player in the 1997-2000 range is going to win 6+ Slams, if only by virtue of opportunity. The Big Four won't last forever. The 89-93 group won't be dominant. Zverev is the most likely candidate, but there are a ton of other players to consider - Fritz, Tiafoe, Kozlov, Rublev, Ruud, Mikael Ymer, Shapovalov, De Minaur, Aliassime, etc.

I wasn't watching tennis back then (it was watching 2004/2005 Wimbledon finals that got me interested again and to being a Roger fan). However, I seem to recall Roger talking about how people used to talk about how he was going to be great, and he sort of felt that he hadn't earned it yet. So I'm guessing people were talking about him fairly early, maybe in his late teens? I guess that fits with 2000/2001. Djokovic was certainly talked about as a great hope for the future already in 2006 when he and Fed had a bit of a spat at the DC about MTOs. Likewise with Murray.

It is as Nadal said about Zverev - with the top players, usually you can see there is something special already when they are teenagers. So you are right to say that you have to look at players born in 1997 or later. Zverev has a chance to be a top player for sure, but we haven't had such tall players winning crazy numbers of slams before. Fed, Sampras, Nadal are all 1.85m Djokovic and Bill Tilden are tallest in the double-digit-major club at 1.88m. JMDP, who is the same height as Zverev at 1.98m, is the tallest player to have won a GS title, but has been plagued by injury problems.

Fed took a long time to build these records. So even if someone aged 18-19 today is going to turn out to break them, I guess they will be safe for the better part of the next two decades at least.

 

[El Dude]

Like you, I wasn't following tennis closely back then, so I'm mainly speculating. But to re-emphasize, I'm sure Rafa, Roger, and Novak were all looked at as serious prospects from a very early age, and even future elites, but I don't think anyone could have predicted just how good and dominant they'd be. Even when Roger won his first Slam in 2003, I'm guessing people were thinking "He could win a bunch of Slams, maybe like Edberg or Becker." No one could have guessed 18+. Maybe Rafa, when he won his first Slam around his 19th birthday, was more projectable as an inner circle great - he was, after all, almost three years younger than Roger was for his first Slam.

But even more so, no one could have possibly predicted that the three of them would win 44+ Slams between them...that is as much as any other five players of the Open Era. Chances are they'll be ~50 before all is said and done.

As for Zverev and such, who knows, but my sense is that he'll win somewhere in the 3-8 range (I know, that's a big range). Given that he's arguably the most talented player born in the decade starting 1989, barring catastrophic injury he's going to win Slams eventually - and at least a few of them. On the other hand, I don't see the atmospheric talent that will make him a double-digit Slam winner. Rather, I think he'll be the best of a herd of half a dozen or so multi-Slam winners, that once the Big Four actually fade, the talent will be packed rather closely for five+ years until a player or three emerges as truly dominant.

So what I see going forward is something like this. Over the next few years, we'll see the last gasp of the Big Four, with gradual diminishing as young players gradually work their way in. I'd guess that none of the Big Four will win a Slam after 2020, maybe even sooner. We're going to see an increasing "Wild West" context in which a dozen players can win Slams and Masters, and there will be lots of upsets and tightening of the top 10 in terms of ranking points.

I think we'll also see Dimitrov, Raonic, and Nishikori have their chances, with at least one or two Slams won between them over the next half decade. Gradually a handful of younger players will emerge as serious Slam threats. Right now Zverev, Thiem, and Kyrgios are the most likely candidates, but others bear watching, in rough order of age and thus "Slam closeness:" Khachanov, Medvedev, Fritz, Rublev, Opelka, Bublik, Tiafoe, Kozlov, Lee, Mmoh, Tsitsipas, M Ymer, Ruud, Shapovalov, De Minaur, and eventually Aliassime. Some of these guys will max out somewhere between #20-100, but a few of them at least will reach the top 10 and probably win Slams.

As far as a truly dominant player goes, maybe one of the above emerges from the pack, or maybe someone we haven't heard of yet.

 

[Kieran]

It's difficult to say. If they're shuffling the speeds of courts again - which is a wise move - then records won't be easily broken. The current crew have broken so many records because the surfaces are easier to navigate across, and the opposition is therefore easier to subdue basically everywhere. The effect this has on the competitive nature of the opposition has been hugely detrimental. A player has no "specialist surface" anymore where he can bog an S&V specialist down in the quicksand of slow clay. It matters. And it matters also to Nadal, and his 9 RG titles, as much as any of the other records that have been broken. They're enlarged almost by an ATP exercise in encouraging top-heavy rivalries at the expense of the overall health of the sport...

 

[mightyjeditribble]

It's difficult to say. If they're shuffling the speeds of courts again - which is a wise move - then records won't be easily broken. The current crew have broken so many records because the surfaces are easier to navigate across, and the opposition is therefore easier to subdue basically everywhere. The effect this has on the competitive nature of the opposition has been hugely detrimental. A player has no "specialist surface" anymore where he can bog an S&V specialist down in the quicksand of slow clay. It matters. And it matters also to Nadal, and his 9 RG titles, as much as any of the other records that have been broken. They're enlarged almost by an ATP exercise in encouraging top-heavy rivalries at the expense of the overall health of the sport...

I'm not sure that there has been any conscious decision to homogenise the courts. I am also not sure how much of it really is due to a change in the speed of the courts, and how much is the advance of playing technology / stragegy.

I seem to remember reading that AO organisers said they hadn't done anything differently this year - except that it so happened that the main show courts were resurfaced a week (I think) later than the previous year. So any change is likely to be quite minor - but then minor changes can have big consequences when the margins are so small.

 

[Kieran]

It's difficult to say. If they're shuffling the speeds of courts again - which is a wise move - then records won't be easily broken. The current crew have broken so many records because the surfaces are easier to navigate across, and the opposition is therefore easier to subdue basically everywhere. The effect this has on the competitive nature of the opposition has been hugely detrimental. A player has no "specialist surface" anymore where he can bog an S&V specialist down in the quicksand of slow clay. It matters. And it matters also to Nadal, and his 9 RG titles, as much as any of the other records that have been broken. They're enlarged almost by an ATP exercise in encouraging top-heavy rivalries at the expense of the overall health of the sport...

I'm not sure that there has been any conscious decision to homogenise the courts. I am also not sure how much of it really is due to a change in the speed of the courts, and how much is the advance of playing technology / stragegy.

I seem to remember reading that AO organisers said they hadn't done anything differently this year - except that it so happened that the main show courts were resurfaced a week (I think) later than the previous year. So any change is likely to be quite minor - but then minor changes can have big consequences when the margins are so small.

I think there was a deliberate policy within the sport to slow courts down. The Sampras-Ivanisevic final of 1994 was a tipping point for some in the game, given how few rallies there were, and how deadening a spectacle it was for neutrals. The policy was to make the sport more viewer-friendly, with an emphasis on bigging up the rivalries of the top players. It took a while to change the game, but change it they did, to the extent that from about 2002 onwards, Wimbledon has been mainly fought and won from the baseline. A result from this is that coaches almost exclusively teach the same type of two-handed backhand baserliners game, and so not only are the surfaces more homogenised (but not completely homogenised), but the playing styles are too...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's difficult to say. If they're shuffling the speeds of courts again - which is a wise move - then records won't be easily broken. The current crew have broken so many records because the surfaces are easier to navigate across, and the opposition is therefore easier to subdue basically everywhere. The effect this has on the competitive nature of the opposition has been hugely detrimental. A player has no "specialist surface" anymore where he can bog an S&V specialist down in the quicksand of slow clay. It matters. And it matters also to Nadal, and his 9 RG titles, as much as any of the other records that have been broken. They're enlarged almost by an ATP exercise in encouraging top-heavy rivalries at the expense of the overall health of the sport...

I'm not sure that there has been any conscious decision to homogenise the courts. I am also not sure how much of it really is due to a change in the speed of the courts, and how much is the advance of playing technology / stragegy.

I seem to remember reading that AO organisers said they hadn't done anything differently this year - except that it so happened that the main show courts were resurfaced a week (I think) later than the previous year. So any change is likely to be quite minor - but then minor changes can have big consequences when the margins are so small.

I think there was a deliberate policy within the sport to slow courts down. The Sampras-Ivanisevic final of 1994 was a tipping point for some in the game, given how few rallies there were, and how deadening a spectacle it was for neutrals. The policy was to make the sport more viewer-friendly, with an emphasis on bigging up the rivalries of the top players. It took a while to change the game, but change it they did, to the extent that from about 2002 onwards, Wimbledon has been mainly fought and won from the baseline. A result from this is that coaches almost exclusively teach the same type of two-handed backhand baserliners game, and so not only are the surfaces more homogenised (but not completely homogenised), but the playing styles are too...

Wimbledon definitely deliberately slowed down the courts. I guess the contention here is that the different tourneys are not colluding to homogenise the courts. They make independent decisions, even though the result may have been to homogenization.

 

[El Dude]

An honest question: If the courts hadn't changed and remained the same as in the 90s, how do you think this would have effected the Big Four? Would Rafa have won any Wimbledons? Would Roger have won the French Open? Etc.

I tend to think it wouldn't have been that different. Rafa, in his prime, was an all-court player. He was always best on clay, but from 2008-13 he was so good that he could (and did) beat anyone anywhere, with the possible exception of a super-fast court (e.g. WTF).

Similarly with Roger and Roland Garros. People tend to forget that he was actually a great clay court player and made it to five Roland Garros finals - that's as many as great clay courters Wilander and Lendl, and only Rafa and Borg played in more, in all of tennis history.

I do think homogenization of courts more impacts the "floor" of players. Look at the consistency of today's greats vs., say, Sampras. If they were more diversified today we'd see more upsets, with first week losses sprinkled throughout the records of the Big Four. But the "ceiling" (titles) might not be any different.

 

[Kieran]

Good question.

I think that maybe Rafa would take the Borg route to winning Wimbo, as in, the faster grass would help his serve, and he's definitely a better volleyer than Borg too, but what helped Borg was that he didn't beat any great pure grasscourt S&V specialists during his run, except the young McEnroe in 1980, a loss Mac corrected once he peaked the following year.

Now, in some ways this is a similar narrative to Rafa-Rog in 2008, but the difference is that the great claycourter beat the grasscourt record holder. In Mac's day, it was the reverse, and Borg never returned to Wimbledon again, as if he could see the writing sprawled all over the wall. My point being - on fast grass, and against S&V specialists, would Rafa have won Wimbledon?

And with such a difference in surface between grass and clay, wouldn't Roger be more a forecourt player than he was during his great Wimbledon years, so would he have been able to adapt to playing so well on clay? Remember, there was a huge difference back then, and great players actually tailored their game to suit their favourite surface. They had to!

Likewise, this question would apply to Novak, and Andy.

I don't know the answer, and I certainly think Roger and Rafa would be greats to compare with previous generations, just as they are now, but would so many records fall? I doubt it. I think the effect of surface specialisation would only make things more difficult for the players at the top...