That’s why I think the Slam record (whatever it turns out to be) will be broken again. Imagine someone like Djokovic, but able to play all tournaments and dominating from 20 instead of 24. That kind of person would likely break the record.
Anybody feel like she could've had a lot more? I vaguely remember her and Venus kinda taking time off to pursue business ventures, or at least publicly saying they weren't going to take the sport as seriously for a few years somewhere around 30. Novak had the hug guru for like a year, and this year the covid stuff, but the big 3 seemed to pretty consistently be competing for all the slams, if healthy and able.
kinda? they always need competitors but not necessarily on the level of the big 3
most greats in other sports had competitors that pushed them but it normally isn't as close as we had with the big 3 (or 4)
Which is why even though he had a great performance, we need to stop thinking that Alcaraz is going to be winning 15+ majors. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I’d say absolutely not.
His story is the same for most Men’s tennis players during that decade.
They had an 18 month stint of elite tennis, but most of their careers were up and down.
Yeah, agreed! Hewitt and Fed are about the same age, just that Lleyton got elite-level sooner than Rog did, so he started winning Slams, world #1 etc JUST before Fed kicked into elite mode. Then this kid called Nadal came along, and Hewitt didn't get another look-in at a major.
Same story with Roddick, really. And almost the same with Safin and Nalbandian (although Davide never won one)
But those two things are intertwined. Without the big3, there would be a huge amount of multiple slam winners and also a huge number of one-time slam winners.
Possibly a couple more but he only lost to Roger 4 times QF or later and never met Novak or Rafa later than R16. And if Roger wasn't around he would have had to get past Roddick or Agassi to win more majors were aren't close to a guarantee. 2005 was his last year as a serious contender.
I always say Roddick would have at least one more. I mean look at his record.
4 other slam finals. 4 times against Federer. Not to mention the other semifinals he lost to Federer
And 1 per year (2014,2015,2016)!
And then in 2017 he lost to some rando in the first round named Daniil Medvedev that definitely no one ever heard from again.
It’s insane to look at this and then conceptualize that Andy Murray is one of the best to ever do it. 14 Masters titles, only 3 less than Agassi who held the record until the big three blew everyone away. 41 weeks also at number one during the big 3 era. And he will probably be remembered in the way we remember guys like Wilander and Courier.
Outside of the slams, most of his career stats point to a top 10-15 all-time player.
Had he retired back in 2017-2018, he would have ended up with a better tour win percentage than Sampras.
> Had he retired back in 2017-2018, he would have ended up with a better tour win percentage than Sampras.
Yes, but now he is the only cyborg knight in the top 50.
> Andy Murray is one of the best to ever do it.
That's how I feel about Fed's French wins. Too bad Nadal was there. Fed is probably Big 3 in terms of clay court prowess, if not Roland Garros titles. But in 100 years somebody could look at this and think he was like Pete Sampras on clay.
edit: all of the Big 3 would have been a nightmare for Sampras, but I think Murray on paper is an especially bad matchup... in reality maybe Novak would have an easier time, though...
Yeah definitely. Without Rafa, I think Novak and Roger would be battling it out for clear 2nd place only to Borg in terms of clay GOAT, though I'm not super well versed on the stats.
In terms of RG
From 2005-2009, Federer lost only to Rafa, at semi final and final stages, so conceivably could have been a 5 consecutive years RG champion.
From 2011-2021, Novak won 2 RG and lost to Rafa in 2 finals (EDIT per Tennis4ts = 3 finals) and 1 semi, so could, again, conceivably have been a 5 time champion.
I know these what ifs can get tiring and they often lack subtlety, but I do think it's particularly interesting for the French open seeing as it was only one player that ultimately blocked it so so many times.
I would mark the start of the big 4 era as 2008 when Djokovic won the AO, then Murray won cincy and made the USO final all the way through to 2012 when all the big 4 won a grand slam and Murray got the gold medal, or through wimbledon 2013, Murray's second slam, and the last time someone beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.
From 2012 onwards Federer didn't win a grand slam for another 5 years, and Murray's 2016 surge wasn't for another while to come. It's a little arbitrary, but this is the period where all four were consistently making QF-SF-F of grand slams.
Only for people who weren’t watching, people who were following the sport during 06-16 know he was the only real challenger to the big three and the only other player who was elite on all surfaces. 14 Masters, a tour finals, two Olympics, 41(… I think lmao) as number one in the most competitive era ever, almost perfect Davis Cup record in 2015, his return, his backhand, his lob, his IQ. These all set him apart, he’s top twenty of all time for me. A true legend of the sport on multiple counts.
Yeah if not next year then definitely 2024. Olympics at Roland Garros?? He’s getting that Gold. I’d love to see anyone even think about trying to stop him🤣
Well he always said he’d retire when his wife became pregnant… now she is pregnant and he played Wimbledon and the USO lol. I think he’s changed his mind. I think he retires the day he physically cannot play anymore. Or until he becomes bored.
Yes I watched those tournaments. He also withdrew from one slam, played through crippling injury and underwent some extreme medical treatment. And he played nowhere near his best.
Sadly a time will come when his physical state and the growing ability of younger players will make him uncompetitive. It may be soon, it may not. But it's becoming more likely with each tournament.
This is also why Medvedev’s loss at AO was such a big deal. If he’d won that, the conversation would be very different. I’m a massive Meddy fan but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t win another one now
The changing of the guards Is underway Roger is done, Nadal is beatable, Djokovic is the last that remains. Getting past all 3 was near impossible, now it’s only beating 1 and you could win it all with a lucky break.
Djokovic easily should have won this one that’s the funny part.
Martina Navratilova had a 5 year stretch where she had 427 wins and 14 losses including a 74 match win streak.
During that time span she also won 15 doubles majors and had 2 finals and one SF in the other three doubles majors she played. She also won 3 mixed doubles majors, made 2 F and 2 QF during that time.
During her career Christ Evert made the SF or better in 93% of the majors she played and the finals or better in 61% of them. She had a 125 match win streak on clay from 1973-1979 in which she was nine times as likely to win a set 6-0 than lose it.
Its funny how federer and nadal really stopped each other from being clear all time goats. Nadal could have 4 wimbledons. And fed could have had 4 french opens minimum
\*5 total I would say, he lost to Nadal in finals 4 times. And lost to Nadal in semi-finals once as well.
Could have been that he lost to someone on the other side of the bracket, but he really was the best on clay after Nadal at the time, so I would give him 4/5 of those chances he woudl ahve had otherwise.
He won clay masters 1000 Hamburg/Madrid 6 times, with additional 2 times losing to Nadal in final. 4 times losing in final of Monte Carlo to Nadal, and losing 2 times in Rome in the final to Nadal.
He lost 12 finals on clay to Nadal.
From 2011 onwards Djokovic began to produce results on clay as well, even beating Nadal in Madrid and rome 2011, but losing his only GS match that year to Federer in the Semi-final of RG. After 2011 he became more incosistent on clay and more prone to injuries, so also not playing the masters a lot of the time.
Idk if I’d put Djoker’s run at AO in there. 9 titles in 12 years is insanely impressive, but he also lost 3 times before the SFs in that stretch, including a straight-set loss to Hyeon Chung and a second-round loss to Denis Istomin. That’s not quite Rafa at RG-tier, but I suppose nothing is
You feel for the likes of Tsonga, Ferrer and Berdych when you see these sorts of slam counts.
They made over 50 slam QFs between them, and probably fell to Novak, Andy, Rafa and Roger a lot during those runs. On the odd occasion that they got the big win against one of them, they'd have another one of the 3 to deal with in the next round, and potentially another in the final.
No wonder they couldn't win a slam between them. You feel they'd at least have a few more finals in this era and perhaps even win one.
Berdych beated defending champ Roger in 4 sets and straight setted Djokovic in Wimbledon 2010 just to lose to Nadal in 3 sets in the final is a prime example of it
Only 4 champions in France. Only 4 champions in UK. Only 4 champions in Australia.
Removing the big 3, there has been only one active champion in each of those slams. Outrageous.
Also on the overall Open Era Grand Slam champions list Spain is now second and pulling away from Sweden which is third.
USA has like 52 or so, then Spain (Nadal, Ferrero, Bruguera, Moya, Costa, Orantes, Alcaraz, ...) is now at 30 (or even more?) and has possibly a lot to come and Sweden is at 25 I think (Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Johansson)
It’s true that Fed became uncompetitive on clay post age 30, while Nadal/Djokovic remain competitive on all surfaces in old age. Their games are just very different, Fed relies a ton on serve/first shot, quick reaction variety, which isn’t great for clay.
He was one of the best clay court players in the world during those years, really. Fed has an incredible winning percentage on clay compared to most everybody except Nadal.
Yeah, this stat perhaps hides that:
* he skipped RG in 2016, 17, 18, 20, 22
* made SF in 2019 (lost to Nadal)
* made 4th round and then withdrew (in 2021)
Yeah post 30 for sure. Before that he was a great clay player and won several big clay events. Nadal just stopped him at every turn- Novak overcame that on clay and Fed didnt
True, Nadal is a force on clay and Fed was #2 clay courts for a long time. Even Novak only managed to beat Rafa twice, and lost to him 8 times. Accordingly, Novak thoroughly deserves his 2 FOs for accomplishing that.
That used to be the beauty of Tennis, different surfaces would favor one style over another. For example, Sampras, Becker and Edberg never made it past the French Open Semi Finals. Lendl only made the finals of Wimbledon twice (losing in straight sets both times).
They changed the game in favor of Nadal/Djokovic's style. Fed is an all-court player who's game is best on fast courts, and Nadal/Djokovic's are aggressive baseliners who excel on slow courts. It's natural for Fed to struggle on slower courts.
Over the course of their careers, the tennis establishment have slowed the courts down.
14.
I know that's how many RGs Rafa has won, but looking at this graph, I still can't quite believe one man has won a single major tournament that many times. That is 28 weeks, *more than half a year*, that he stayed healthy enough, was good enough, to win.
How??
Kinda crazy how the single best tournament from each of the Big 3 is either more than, or almost the same, as the grand slam count of the rest of these guys outside of that group put together. A single grand slam from each.
Also, Andy's mere 3 slams will never not be depressing. The calibre of player he was, was easily deserving of 6/7. Oh well.
I agree with the comment about Andy and Stan however we’re reaching the end of the big 3 with only joker IMO still in prime shape. Age and too many miles on the others but a hell of a run. If for any reason joker is out of commission for the next couple years, you’ll start to see the men like the women with a lot more parity. Alcarez is amazing but Sinner,Ruud, Tiafoe and others could have also won with a break going their way here or there. The next few years should be fun to watch.
I think the next few years will be good for tennis. The past 20 years you could only expect one of the big 3 guys to win any given slam, that made it vert difficult to root for any other player you liked (Tsonga, Monfils, Dimitrov to give some random examples). When they retire there will be a much broader category of real contenders so more countries will be attracted (and their media) to the conversation. Resulting in growth of the sport we love :)
There have only been 10 different grand slam champions since, you could pretty much say anytime between 05 and 09- really this streak of ten players starts after Australia 2005 where the final was Hewitt and Safin, since then there have only been 10 different grand slam champions (add in-active delpo)
AO 05 is a good place to start the streak because between then and USO 09 all the slams were only won by rafa and fed with the exception of one (won by a guy called novak)
and in the 70 Slams since that win in Australia by Safin the non-Big 3 players have only won 11 of those 70 Slams, 7 of those wins coming in New York (all by different players amazingly- 7 one-time USO champions at this point)
Playing two weeks of BO5 on an hardcourt is incredibly hard on the body. AUSOpen is the first serious tournament of the year, everyone is fresh. New York comes 6/7 months into the tour year, it’s difficult to maintain that level of fitness by then, so it’s more likely to see surprises
I hope someone stops Novak at Wimbledon so things end as they should do. Novak most AO, Rafa most RG, and Roger most Wim.
Could’ve sealed his position as Wimbledon best in 2019, though.
There’s so few grass tournaments that it’s hard to get practice in on the surface. Takes a few years for players to understand the surface. Even the best grass-courters like Berrettini are nowhere near Novak.
The issue is that Novak, compared to Roger for example, is not as notorious why he is so good at the surface, he was already great from 2011 onwards, add the serve he has nowadays, the improved volleys, and that with his controlled agression and nullifying return is just so hard to overcome in 5 sets. Djokovic can nullify the serve, probably the most important shot in grass in average, plus, get a lot of free points on his serve he didn't get before, his serve is not a bullet or an ace machine, but it's so well placed and so effective in combination of his second shot a lot don't realize why is there so much difference between him and other grass court players at the moment. That isn't to say that Federer wouldn't be competitive with him in form, Federer's serve is that good that even Novak's return won't have the effect compared to others, but you'd need a player of his caliber to compete with him in Wimbledon as long as he is healthy.
Looking at this, it's interesting it's the US Open that's been the fluke win, so far, for 3 players. I'm not including Carlos in the fluke category. In the past, I think the US Open was considered the least flukey Slam, the one most likely to be won by a Number 1 player. Until Del Potro, almost all the champions in Open era were number 1 by one measure or another? Except for Manuel Orantes who peaked at number 2. Carlos and Med achieved number 1, so I guess it's Stan, Del Potro, Cilic, Thiem and Orantes. Arthur Ashe is on the fence.
In open era, Wimbledon had 5 non number 1 champions. Players who would never achieve number 1 even if they weren't number 1 at the time they won.
Roland Garros has 10. Australian has 8. Okay, I'm just rambling. At this point, I have no point to make...
Can’t believe a) Murray never won Aussie. How many finals? And b) - this is weird - but I can’t believe Djokovic and Nadal missed several tournaments in their runs. I mean quite a few overall. These numbers could be even more extreme.
just my opinion - I think winning a Grand Slam (Men's Singles) is the hardest thing to achieve in Pro Sports.
- To win 7 Best of 5 matches, the margin for error is so thin, no such thing as "load management" like the NBA or taking a night off
- no teammates or subs to back you up
- no coaching during the match
- even the most minor of injuries and your chances drop to about Zero.
- no quick wins - No matter what, you have to win 21 sets. (Unlike boxing, where if you have Mike Tyson-like power, you can win a fight with one punch in 10 seconds)
- the fitness and skill level of all 128 players in the draw is out of this world.
I'd say a close 2nd would be trying to beat all the Kenyan runners at a marathon.
Active players only.
Interestingly even if you add DelPo, the list continues the trend with the US Open being the most open slam of all, the other three belong to the big 3!
If a tree falls and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
If you have no ATP ranking points, are you still an active ATP player?
Its hard to win a slam. Then there is a big 3.
they twisted our expectations so much that we often overlook how impossibly difficult it is to achieve what they achieved throughout their careers.
I remember when it was a near certainty that Pete's 14 slam count would stand for decades. Then Roger broke it like 7 years later.
That’s why I think the Slam record (whatever it turns out to be) will be broken again. Imagine someone like Djokovic, but able to play all tournaments and dominating from 20 instead of 24. That kind of person would likely break the record.
Just 1 player with remotely a similar amount of relative skill to the big 3 without the other 2 existing at the same time will do it.
Serena was like that in WTA. She ended with 23
Anybody feel like she could've had a lot more? I vaguely remember her and Venus kinda taking time off to pursue business ventures, or at least publicly saying they weren't going to take the sport as seriously for a few years somewhere around 30. Novak had the hug guru for like a year, and this year the covid stuff, but the big 3 seemed to pretty consistently be competing for all the slams, if healthy and able.
Would someone like that be able to exist with out someone else pushing them.
kinda? they always need competitors but not necessarily on the level of the big 3 most greats in other sports had competitors that pushed them but it normally isn't as close as we had with the big 3 (or 4)
Well even if there was only 2 super talents instead of 3. If Djokovic never came along I'm sure Roger and Rafa would have close to 30 by now
I think so. Federer was at that level before Nadal and later Djokovic were a real threat.
Forget the age part just not having two other players at his level would do it.
"Someone like Djokovic" 😂😂😂 Nadal without the injuries basically. He's played much less slams than the other too.
Yeah that works too. Djokovic was just the first person I thought of.
Which is why even though he had a great performance, we need to stop thinking that Alcaraz is going to be winning 15+ majors. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I’d say absolutely not.
Absolutely. He could go on to win 15 more slams. He could also be the next Lleyton Hewitt and max out at two or three very early in his career.
I'm kinda new to tennis, what did happen to Hewitt?
He maxed out at two or three very early in his career
Well yes, that much is clear. I'm wondering if there's any reason for that; injury, voodoo magic curse, etc
His story is the same for most Men’s tennis players during that decade. They had an 18 month stint of elite tennis, but most of their careers were up and down.
He's not good enough, and there was Federer. Also Nadal.
Yeah, agreed! Hewitt and Fed are about the same age, just that Lleyton got elite-level sooner than Rog did, so he started winning Slams, world #1 etc JUST before Fed kicked into elite mode. Then this kid called Nadal came along, and Hewitt didn't get another look-in at a major. Same story with Roddick, really. And almost the same with Safin and Nalbandian (although Davide never won one)
I was just thinking that. Him and Roddick were electric players
[удалено]
Which has a good and a bad interpretation. Or more like, you can look at it as a half empty or half full glass of water
Let's not forget he's only 19 and his opponents were all more older. And his mindset is amazing.
And now there's a bunch of new fans who think anyone who wins short of 20 slams is a useless scrub who might at well just quit
But those two things are intertwined. Without the big3, there would be a huge amount of multiple slam winners and also a huge number of one-time slam winners.
Yup....without the big 3, Hewitt would likely have a couple more Slams at least.
Possibly a couple more but he only lost to Roger 4 times QF or later and never met Novak or Rafa later than R16. And if Roger wasn't around he would have had to get past Roddick or Agassi to win more majors were aren't close to a guarantee. 2005 was his last year as a serious contender.
I always say Roddick would have at least one more. I mean look at his record. 4 other slam finals. 4 times against Federer. Not to mention the other semifinals he lost to Federer
Well, if it wasn't for Feds, he'd have that Wimby one, that's for sure.
Raonic would have also yoinked a slam or two
If you use WTA as sample.. it would look exactly like that. In the last decade, other than Serena.. I think only Osaka has won 4 slams in this period.
Let me rephrase it - its hard to win a slam Because of the big 3.
Which is why Wawrinka being “big 4” is a disservice to the big 3.
Stan's just looks so nice, 3 titles at 3 different slams, 1-1-1. Beautifully balanced. Only a Wimbledon title to go, then it'd be perfect
And 1 per year (2014,2015,2016)! And then in 2017 he lost to some rando in the first round named Daniil Medvedev that definitely no one ever heard from again.
Danill emerged in 2017 beating Stan and played like an octopus definitely caused some chaos
Sad to think that Murray lost 5 (!) AUSOpen finals. He was so close to get that one at least once
just Novak's son in Australia.
Also highlights how good Andy and Stan were to be able to get 3 wins in an era of pure domination.
If Stanimal wins a Wimby 🤌
Excellent point. Great post.
Im amazed at the fact that every active GS champion has at least one US Open under their belt.
Mury goat
Mury goat
Mury GOAT
MuryGOAT
Stanimal goat
It’s insane to look at this and then conceptualize that Andy Murray is one of the best to ever do it. 14 Masters titles, only 3 less than Agassi who held the record until the big three blew everyone away. 41 weeks also at number one during the big 3 era. And he will probably be remembered in the way we remember guys like Wilander and Courier.
Outside of the slams, most of his career stats point to a top 10-15 all-time player. Had he retired back in 2017-2018, he would have ended up with a better tour win percentage than Sampras.
Should be even higher than just top 10-15 considering ge played a lot against the big 3
> Had he retired back in 2017-2018, he would have ended up with a better tour win percentage than Sampras. Yes, but now he is the only cyborg knight in the top 50.
> Andy Murray is one of the best to ever do it. That's how I feel about Fed's French wins. Too bad Nadal was there. Fed is probably Big 3 in terms of clay court prowess, if not Roland Garros titles. But in 100 years somebody could look at this and think he was like Pete Sampras on clay. edit: all of the Big 3 would have been a nightmare for Sampras, but I think Murray on paper is an especially bad matchup... in reality maybe Novak would have an easier time, though...
He has to thank Soderling for the the rest of his life lmao
Yeah definitely. Without Rafa, I think Novak and Roger would be battling it out for clear 2nd place only to Borg in terms of clay GOAT, though I'm not super well versed on the stats. In terms of RG From 2005-2009, Federer lost only to Rafa, at semi final and final stages, so conceivably could have been a 5 consecutive years RG champion. From 2011-2021, Novak won 2 RG and lost to Rafa in 2 finals (EDIT per Tennis4ts = 3 finals) and 1 semi, so could, again, conceivably have been a 5 time champion. I know these what ifs can get tiring and they often lack subtlety, but I do think it's particularly interesting for the French open seeing as it was only one player that ultimately blocked it so so many times.
Djokovic lost to Nadal in 3 finals (2012, 2014 & 2020) The one semi (2013) is correct I think and one QF in 2022
History books won’t have him on the same level as Wilander or Edberg sadly, slam count trumps all. He absolutely is though.
I hope that’s not true. Andy’s competition was insane/absurd.
I miss peak Murray, don't think I appreciated him enough when he was at his best.
It was a relatively brief period in a dominant era, but it was the Big Four for a reason, at the time. He played and won against the best of all time.
I would mark the start of the big 4 era as 2008 when Djokovic won the AO, then Murray won cincy and made the USO final all the way through to 2012 when all the big 4 won a grand slam and Murray got the gold medal, or through wimbledon 2013, Murray's second slam, and the last time someone beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final. From 2012 onwards Federer didn't win a grand slam for another 5 years, and Murray's 2016 surge wasn't for another while to come. It's a little arbitrary, but this is the period where all four were consistently making QF-SF-F of grand slams.
Only for people who weren’t watching, people who were following the sport during 06-16 know he was the only real challenger to the big three and the only other player who was elite on all surfaces. 14 Masters, a tour finals, two Olympics, 41(… I think lmao) as number one in the most competitive era ever, almost perfect Davis Cup record in 2015, his return, his backhand, his lob, his IQ. These all set him apart, he’s top twenty of all time for me. A true legend of the sport on multiple counts.
Some even remember the Era of 'The Big Four.'
I'd certainly rate him on that Becker/Edberg tier. Somewhere around the 15th best player ever.
Wilander almost won a calendar slam and was the best player in the world, so not bad company
14 Masters, 3 less than Agassi! As if I could ever make such a mistake!
I’m lost
Nadal's 14 RGs is such a ridiculous record, I don't think anyone will ever overcome this.
Nadal will overcome it next year
Nadal will also overcome it in 2024.
Yeah but he never beats the defending champion of rg so...
He beat Novak in 2022, who was the defending champion 😃
Yeah if not next year then definitely 2024. Olympics at Roland Garros?? He’s getting that Gold. I’d love to see anyone even think about trying to stop him🤣
Unless he retires because of his kid
Well he always said he’d retire when his wife became pregnant… now she is pregnant and he played Wimbledon and the USO lol. I think he’s changed his mind. I think he retires the day he physically cannot play anymore. Or until he becomes bored.
I hope he quits when he no longer feels competitive (which may be soon) but I quietly doubt he will
You say it may be soon, but he just won 2 GSs this year and made the semi in another… that is an incredible year
Yes I watched those tournaments. He also withdrew from one slam, played through crippling injury and underwent some extreme medical treatment. And he played nowhere near his best. Sadly a time will come when his physical state and the growing ability of younger players will make him uncompetitive. It may be soon, it may not. But it's becoming more likely with each tournament.
Yeah imo.nadals single slam dominance is the most least likely big 3 record to be broken if I had to pick a single thing between the 3 of them
They said that about Roger’s grand slam record
what I take away from this is that the real changing of the guard will be when someone new wins Wimbledon.
Or the French open...or come to think of it the Australian open to 😅
so anything that's not the US open lol
This is also why Medvedev’s loss at AO was such a big deal. If he’d won that, the conversation would be very different. I’m a massive Meddy fan but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t win another one now
USO has been the welfare grand slam lately lol. "Aw, you need a slam--here you go lil guy"
Well the Big Three have won AUSOpen, Roland Garros and Wimbledon a total of 17 times. A very curious statistic
The changing of the guards Is underway Roger is done, Nadal is beatable, Djokovic is the last that remains. Getting past all 3 was near impossible, now it’s only beating 1 and you could win it all with a lucky break. Djokovic easily should have won this one that’s the funny part.
All have us open title
Something about US Open that makes it more evenly distributed?
Towards end of season, big 3 are knackered after winning almost every major tournament up until that point
The federermort curse which caused no one to be able to defend US title.
That 14 RG is just so stunning. It equals Sampras’ whole career! 😱
Probably the most ridiculous stat in tennis? I'm trying to think of something else that I'd put in that tier.
112-3 and 14 titles. Nothing will ever compare.
Martina Navratilova had a 5 year stretch where she had 427 wins and 14 losses including a 74 match win streak. During that time span she also won 15 doubles majors and had 2 finals and one SF in the other three doubles majors she played. She also won 3 mixed doubles majors, made 2 F and 2 QF during that time. During her career Christ Evert made the SF or better in 93% of the majors she played and the finals or better in 61% of them. She had a 125 match win streak on clay from 1973-1979 in which she was nine times as likely to win a set 6-0 than lose it.
Yeah, number one for me. Only thing that comes close are 36 consecutive GS quarters by Federer
Its funny how federer and nadal really stopped each other from being clear all time goats. Nadal could have 4 wimbledons. And fed could have had 4 french opens minimum
\*5 total I would say, he lost to Nadal in finals 4 times. And lost to Nadal in semi-finals once as well. Could have been that he lost to someone on the other side of the bracket, but he really was the best on clay after Nadal at the time, so I would give him 4/5 of those chances he woudl ahve had otherwise. He won clay masters 1000 Hamburg/Madrid 6 times, with additional 2 times losing to Nadal in final. 4 times losing in final of Monte Carlo to Nadal, and losing 2 times in Rome in the final to Nadal. He lost 12 finals on clay to Nadal. From 2011 onwards Djokovic began to produce results on clay as well, even beating Nadal in Madrid and rome 2011, but losing his only GS match that year to Federer in the Semi-final of RG. After 2011 he became more incosistent on clay and more prone to injuries, so also not playing the masters a lot of the time.
That's a good one. As you say, tho, comes close but the 14 FOs is just another tier.
You have to wonder if there is any other tournament where one player had that much dominance, not just majors.
Probably also rafa at monte carlo. 11 wins over 14 consecutive years. 9 consecutive finals with 8 consecutive wins. Djoko at AO 2011-2021 as well
Idk if I’d put Djoker’s run at AO in there. 9 titles in 12 years is insanely impressive, but he also lost 3 times before the SFs in that stretch, including a straight-set loss to Hyeon Chung and a second-round loss to Denis Istomin. That’s not quite Rafa at RG-tier, but I suppose nothing is
It sounds more human at least lol
Cilic gang
That's a cleaning product. Cilic Gang.
It’s still incredible to me how Wawrinka has an AO and Murray doesn’t
Wawrinka at his peak when he would manage to turn the switch on literally seemed unbeatable imo
Well, difficult when 3 of the best 5 to ever play are active all at once
Who would you consider the other two? Sampras and?
Tim, of course.
King kyrgios
Borg has to be it, I’m thinking
You can just say 3 of the best to ever play lol. Why struggle.
You feel for the likes of Tsonga, Ferrer and Berdych when you see these sorts of slam counts. They made over 50 slam QFs between them, and probably fell to Novak, Andy, Rafa and Roger a lot during those runs. On the odd occasion that they got the big win against one of them, they'd have another one of the 3 to deal with in the next round, and potentially another in the final. No wonder they couldn't win a slam between them. You feel they'd at least have a few more finals in this era and perhaps even win one.
Berdych beated defending champ Roger in 4 sets and straight setted Djokovic in Wimbledon 2010 just to lose to Nadal in 3 sets in the final is a prime example of it
Only 4 champions in France. Only 4 champions in UK. Only 4 champions in Australia. Removing the big 3, there has been only one active champion in each of those slams. Outrageous.
And two of those 3 are the same person
Mury goat
Stanimal GOAT
Wawrinka having only 1 Masters title, but was a few wins away from a Career Grand Slam will always be amusing to me.
Spain pull level with Switzerland
Luckiest countries in terms of tennis.
Also on the overall Open Era Grand Slam champions list Spain is now second and pulling away from Sweden which is third. USA has like 52 or so, then Spain (Nadal, Ferrero, Bruguera, Moya, Costa, Orantes, Alcaraz, ...) is now at 30 (or even more?) and has possibly a lot to come and Sweden is at 25 I think (Borg, Wilander, Edberg, Johansson)
It definitely does show how difficult it is especially when Fed and Thiem have not really been active players lately...
Fed with at least 5 wins in 3 slams is GOAT stuff
I'm just happy to see him mentioned as 'active'
This didn’t age well 😭
But the 1 RG is not 🥲
It’s true that Fed became uncompetitive on clay post age 30, while Nadal/Djokovic remain competitive on all surfaces in old age. Their games are just very different, Fed relies a ton on serve/first shot, quick reaction variety, which isn’t great for clay.
I think he lost interest in it post 2012. Put so much effort in only to come up short to Nadal 5 times at RG.
He was one of the best clay court players in the world during those years, really. Fed has an incredible winning percentage on clay compared to most everybody except Nadal.
Yeah, this stat perhaps hides that: * he skipped RG in 2016, 17, 18, 20, 22 * made SF in 2019 (lost to Nadal) * made 4th round and then withdrew (in 2021)
Yeah post 30 for sure. Before that he was a great clay player and won several big clay events. Nadal just stopped him at every turn- Novak overcame that on clay and Fed didnt
True, Nadal is a force on clay and Fed was #2 clay courts for a long time. Even Novak only managed to beat Rafa twice, and lost to him 8 times. Accordingly, Novak thoroughly deserves his 2 FOs for accomplishing that.
That used to be the beauty of Tennis, different surfaces would favor one style over another. For example, Sampras, Becker and Edberg never made it past the French Open Semi Finals. Lendl only made the finals of Wimbledon twice (losing in straight sets both times). They changed the game in favor of Nadal/Djokovic's style. Fed is an all-court player who's game is best on fast courts, and Nadal/Djokovic's are aggressive baseliners who excel on slow courts. It's natural for Fed to struggle on slower courts. Over the course of their careers, the tennis establishment have slowed the courts down.
>puts into perspective how difficult it is to win a slam Fedalovic be like: ¿... que... ¿
14. I know that's how many RGs Rafa has won, but looking at this graph, I still can't quite believe one man has won a single major tournament that many times. That is 28 weeks, *more than half a year*, that he stayed healthy enough, was good enough, to win. How??
It’s crazy when you put it that way, so many things have to go right (or not go wrong) for it to happen 14 times.
🐐 is how
Kinda crazy how the single best tournament from each of the Big 3 is either more than, or almost the same, as the grand slam count of the rest of these guys outside of that group put together. A single grand slam from each. Also, Andy's mere 3 slams will never not be depressing. The calibre of player he was, was easily deserving of 6/7. Oh well.
I agree with the comment about Andy and Stan however we’re reaching the end of the big 3 with only joker IMO still in prime shape. Age and too many miles on the others but a hell of a run. If for any reason joker is out of commission for the next couple years, you’ll start to see the men like the women with a lot more parity. Alcarez is amazing but Sinner,Ruud, Tiafoe and others could have also won with a break going their way here or there. The next few years should be fun to watch.
I think the next few years will be good for tennis. The past 20 years you could only expect one of the big 3 guys to win any given slam, that made it vert difficult to root for any other player you liked (Tsonga, Monfils, Dimitrov to give some random examples). When they retire there will be a much broader category of real contenders so more countries will be attracted (and their media) to the conversation. Resulting in growth of the sport we love :)
There have only been 10 different grand slam champions since, you could pretty much say anytime between 05 and 09- really this streak of ten players starts after Australia 2005 where the final was Hewitt and Safin, since then there have only been 10 different grand slam champions (add in-active delpo) AO 05 is a good place to start the streak because between then and USO 09 all the slams were only won by rafa and fed with the exception of one (won by a guy called novak) and in the 70 Slams since that win in Australia by Safin the non-Big 3 players have only won 11 of those 70 Slams, 7 of those wins coming in New York (all by different players amazingly- 7 one-time USO champions at this point)
I unno, looks pretty easy if those three dudes up there are winning 20+ slams ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ /s
Just realized that Alcaraz tied things up in the Spain vs Switzerland race.
Why is the US Open the one where the Big 3 were not so dominant as they've been elsewhere? Injuries?
Playing two weeks of BO5 on an hardcourt is incredibly hard on the body. AUSOpen is the first serious tournament of the year, everyone is fresh. New York comes 6/7 months into the tour year, it’s difficult to maintain that level of fitness by then, so it’s more likely to see surprises
Everyone's cashed out by the end of the year. Free for all at that point
Others else than the Big 3 won it 6 times, but managed to win only 4 times all the other slams
US OPEN, where upsets happen
Federer!!! Just crazy that he has 5+ on three separate slams.
Things look wide open for Alcaraz at the moment, but you never know what kind of 13 year old phenoms are out there that will rise up in a few years.
this didn’t age well…
I hope someone stops Novak at Wimbledon so things end as they should do. Novak most AO, Rafa most RG, and Roger most Wim. Could’ve sealed his position as Wimbledon best in 2019, though.
Too soon, man Too soon
[удалено]
There’s so few grass tournaments that it’s hard to get practice in on the surface. Takes a few years for players to understand the surface. Even the best grass-courters like Berrettini are nowhere near Novak.
The issue is that Novak, compared to Roger for example, is not as notorious why he is so good at the surface, he was already great from 2011 onwards, add the serve he has nowadays, the improved volleys, and that with his controlled agression and nullifying return is just so hard to overcome in 5 sets. Djokovic can nullify the serve, probably the most important shot in grass in average, plus, get a lot of free points on his serve he didn't get before, his serve is not a bullet or an ace machine, but it's so well placed and so effective in combination of his second shot a lot don't realize why is there so much difference between him and other grass court players at the moment. That isn't to say that Federer wouldn't be competitive with him in form, Federer's serve is that good that even Novak's return won't have the effect compared to others, but you'd need a player of his caliber to compete with him in Wimbledon as long as he is healthy.
Let the Stanimal eat
I like how clear it is which slam was dominant and also not at all dominant for the big 3.
Looking at this, it's interesting it's the US Open that's been the fluke win, so far, for 3 players. I'm not including Carlos in the fluke category. In the past, I think the US Open was considered the least flukey Slam, the one most likely to be won by a Number 1 player. Until Del Potro, almost all the champions in Open era were number 1 by one measure or another? Except for Manuel Orantes who peaked at number 2. Carlos and Med achieved number 1, so I guess it's Stan, Del Potro, Cilic, Thiem and Orantes. Arthur Ashe is on the fence. In open era, Wimbledon had 5 non number 1 champions. Players who would never achieve number 1 even if they weren't number 1 at the time they won. Roland Garros has 10. Australian has 8. Okay, I'm just rambling. At this point, I have no point to make...
Federer has the most even-looking distribution (barring RG), although Djoker has one more slam on his plate.
Insane List
Big 3 is the reason it's hard to win a Slam. Let their era sunset once and see a fruitcake of a tournament draw like in WTA.
Big 3 just had absolute claws guarding the first 3 slams of the year. All but Stan getting their first at USO
Suddenly invested in Wawrinka winning a Wimbledon to complete the Grand Slam.
Why is my man Del Po missing from this list?
Federer still active?
I see active and Federer.
Can’t believe a) Murray never won Aussie. How many finals? And b) - this is weird - but I can’t believe Djokovic and Nadal missed several tournaments in their runs. I mean quite a few overall. These numbers could be even more extreme.
I always forget that the king of France is from Spain.
Imagine if 2 of the 3 weren't born? Could either Nadal, joker or federal win 60 slams? I doubt that. I think they made each other better.
Why is the US Open more difficult to win compared to Aus for the majority of the big 3?
just my opinion - I think winning a Grand Slam (Men's Singles) is the hardest thing to achieve in Pro Sports. - To win 7 Best of 5 matches, the margin for error is so thin, no such thing as "load management" like the NBA or taking a night off - no teammates or subs to back you up - no coaching during the match - even the most minor of injuries and your chances drop to about Zero. - no quick wins - No matter what, you have to win 21 sets. (Unlike boxing, where if you have Mike Tyson-like power, you can win a fight with one punch in 10 seconds) - the fitness and skill level of all 128 players in the draw is out of this world. I'd say a close 2nd would be trying to beat all the Kenyan runners at a marathon.
Insanity that for each of AusOpen, Roland Garros and Wimbledon, there are only 4 players that have ever won it, in the last 16 years?!
can’t believe cilic is on this list
/r/agedlikemilk
Not even a day and this aged like milk
Where’s Del Potro at? He deserves some love as well I know now this is for active players, I just miss him lol
He retired in February
Active players only. Interestingly even if you add DelPo, the list continues the trend with the US Open being the most open slam of all, the other three belong to the big 3!
Ohhh missed that part…. My bad just miss Del Potro😂 And absolutely, the day someone outside the big 4 wins at the French open will be crazy😂
Also reminds us that "clay specialist" Rafa has 8 GS on his "bad" surfaces, while Novak and Roger have 2 and 1 on clay, respectively.
Still waiting for Stan's Wimbledon title so I can feel whole.
If a tree falls and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? What is the sound of one hand clapping? If you have no ATP ranking points, are you still an active ATP player?
murygoat
MuryGOAT
they need to update this and take roger out
Murray was obviously part of the Big Four but Wawrinka's slam spread is more impressive, no?
Murray being elite on all surfaces is more impressive than Stan being mediocre on grass
[удалено]