500 Match Wins Club

Further to an article on the ATP website, the latest milestone that Rafael Nadal would achieve if he reached the final at Barcelona is membership to the 500 Match Wins Club, where he would be the second youngest (behind Borg) to achieve this.

The list of luminaries is as follows, and some of the game’s Greats of the ‘80s and ‘90s are in there. However, I’m a bit surprised that the past decade has only produced two players of note in Nadal and Federer that have achieved this milestone.

Is this something else that is reflective of their dominance, and is this why other players who emerged in this decade have not achieved this milestone? But how come it was achievable for others in the past?

Age at 500th Win

1. Bjorn Borg - 23 (7 mos.)
2. Ivan Lendl - 24 (11 mos., 4 days)
3. John McEnroe - 24 (11 mos., 18 days)
4. Jimmy Connors - 25 (2 mos., 18 days)
5. Michael Chang - 25 (2 mos.)
6. Pete Sampras - 25 (3 mos., 10 days)
7. Mats Wilander - 25 (5 mos., 3 days)
8. Boris Becker - 25 (5 mos., 20 days)
9. Stefan Edberg - 25 (6 mos.)
10. Roger Federer - 25 (8 mos., 13 days)

ATP link

I think that Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick both have 500 wins as well, which would make 4 active players to have achieved the milestone when Nadal reaches it.

It does seem a small amount of players that have been playing in the last 10 years to achieve it, and in the future I can't see their being many more. Maybe it's a testament to the ability of certain players to hit this milestone, as it seems to be quite an exclusive club, in the nearish future I can see Djokovic passing it and maybe Murray, but I'm not too sure about anyone else.

I mean I've only been watching and playing tennis for the last 10 years, so I'm not entirely sure if the calendar has increased massively so more players should hit this mark or if it's even got harder compared to what it used to be to hit this mark.

Thanks for bringing up Hewitt and Roddick, Gonzini. I guess what this list also does is group it by age, and these two players obviously don't make the top ten because of this reason.

Its been mentioned before about the lack of teenagers coming through in tennis today, where we used to see it in the past and is probably why the likes of Borg, Wilander, Sampras, Becker etc. achieve this milestone by age 25. Wonder where the next one is coming from?

The only guy that could possibly make that list of ten fastest to 500, right now is my man Djokovic. He has around 370 wins and 13 months till he turns 25. Plus to sneak into the top ten he has till he is 25 years and 7 months because Fed at #10 did it in 25 years and 8 months. So Djoko needs 130 wins 20 months. If he is healthy in that time frame he could do it. But it would be still be tough. Murray has no chance, and the only other guy Del Potro also has no chance of getting in the top ten fastest. I think they both get to 500 eventually, but breaking into that list is no joke.

So Rafa will knock Roger out of the top 10 when he makes the list

Yeah, Nadal will knock Roger out of the top ten, I guess Djoko with mid 300 wins doesn't have a chance of getting in the top ten unless he really goes on an epic tear for the next two seasons. Rafa will enter the list I think in the top 3. Pretty impressive, I hope he has more longevity than Borg. Although Borg's number is unbelievable and that may be a record that lasts a lifetime. Sort of like Laver's two calendar year grandslams. Players aren't making the kind of impact in their teenage years anymore like Borg or even like Rafa. I can't see any of today's 18 or 19 year olds even challenging the top ten let alone threatening borg.

Rafa will enter the list at No. 2, and it just now proves what a phenominal record he's had since his breakthrough year aged 19. It also further emphasises how amazing Borg's record was, considering he just walked away from tennis in his prime.

Thanks for doing the numbers on Nole, Murray and JMDP, socal, which shows that unless Nole does something unbelieveable, none of these other crop of players will get 500 wins by their 26th birthday, even though Nole broke into the top 10 at age 19.

In the commentary I watched last night from yesterday's tennis, I think it was Peter Fleming that made the remark that today's tour is averaging older than recent times, and I think he said 27. You would think it would be a younger man's sport..

Wooffie wrote:Rafa will enter the list at No. 2, and it just now proves what a phenominal record he's had since his breakthrough year aged 19. It also further emphasises how amazing Borg's record was, considering he just walked away from tennis in his prime.

Thanks for doing the numbers on Nole, Murray and JMDP, socal, which shows that unless Nole does something unbelieveable, none of these other crop of players will get 500 wins by their 26th birthday, even though Nole broke into the top 10 at age 19.

In the commentary I watched last night from yesterday's tennis, I think it was Peter Fleming that made the remark that today's tour is averaging older than recent times, and I think he said 27. You would think it would be a younger man's sport..

It's not all that surprising really, when you think about it. For all people yap on about tennis being a highly physical sport these days, devoid of technical ability, that's simply not true; Federer's shown this for years, dominating with a game that was relatively light on the physical side. OK, so being able to run fast and retrieve everything, and being able to belt winners at 100mph is great too, but you have to have the accuracy to land those shots consistently, and you have to manouever yourself into a position to hit those shots well in the first place!

A lot of the younger lads only really have a developed physical side to the game, with the consistency missing; see Monfils in the past for example. Over the last year his consistency has improved a fair bit, so those impossible retreivals actually mean something now; it's all very well being able to retreive, but if retreiving just sets up someone to smash a winner past you then it was completely pointless. Likewise, del Potro used to be and to be honest still can be rather inconsistent; too many unforced errors as a result of trying to obliterate the ball, which in turn equalled many an early defeat in big tournaments.

By the time your say, 26, you've still got the physical side, but most players have really got into the groove technically as well; they can get the difficult ones back and add that little bit extra to make it difficult for their opponents, they can hit the winners consistently, they can play smart and dictate their opponents play, and manipulate them into their gameplan. You've got the best of both worlds; the vast, vast majority of 20 year olds aren't going to be the complete package when they make the tour. No sport bar gymnastics (for obvious reasons) expects people so young to be able to do it all, and for good reason. Take your workplace for example: do you expect the new work experience kid to just walk in and know absolutely eveything about your job, and how to excel at it? 99% of the time, no. Same with tennis; lads who've just come onto the tour cannot then be expected to absolutely dominate, and I have no idea why people believe that 20 year olds are always going to be the best. You have the 'chosen few' who've developed faster, but ultimately most players will gradually develop to a peak in their mid/late 20's, like pretty much every other sport.

Soderling, Montanes, Berdych, Fish, Llodra and Anderson are all fine examples of top players who hit their groove in different ways when approaching their mid or late 20's. Take a look beyond the Top 100 and you'll find that most players who are about 25/28 are at either their career high or near it.

At the same time, some players who really did rely on the physical game as a youngster, and were either fast enough to continually retrieve and force their opponents into mistakes, or had good runs with their explosive shots, but haven't moved further on, like Robredo, Chela, or Malisse, find themselves plummeting down the rankings as they fail to make the grade at the very very top technically. Some other players, like Gasquet, burst onto the scene young, find themselves doing well, and then their lack of shots/consistency is exposed, they lose confidence and plummet. But then they discover that groove, that confidence, that consistency, and rise up the rankings again; a 'second coming' if you like. You could argue that Mardy Fish is another example, though it is clear he is far more dangerous than the Top 20 player of the late noughties.

The Top 4 are, bar Federer, early twenties, but they are the exceptions, the lads who burst onto the scene, but already had it technically. Even then all 3 of those lads have had to develop blatantly obvious weaknesses, but that just gave them another chance to show that they learn quickly, as they strengthened their weaknesses, and reinforcing their status as some of the very best in the world today. It is because of them that the commentators say it is a young mans game, but they fail to appreciate that those players are the exception, and not the rule.

Excellent post, Stealth.

And people scoff about this place as a tennis forum ...

Yes, a great post by Stealth, bravo I have to concur with that. But stealth in the past it seemed that younger players were making an impact. For example; Murray, Nadal, Novak, Monfils, Berdych, and Gasquet all made their first push up into the top 20 while in their early 20s or even late teens. You had the beckers and wilanders of the world winning teenage grandslams. I think there isn't a player of the current crop of 18-22 year olds (Del Po) excepted who looks to be as good as the Novak/Nadal generation that preceded them and that are now entering their prime. I get your point that these players are great and are the exception to the rule as the prime of tennis players seems to be from 23-28 years of age.



But what would be your answer to why the current crop of 18-22 years old seem to be underperforming when compared to the previous crop (Novak, murray, Nadal, Berdy, Gasquet, and Monfils)? Are they just not as good. Has the game taken two steps forward and one step back, and the current youngsters represent the one step back?

Good reply socal, I think that the standard that Federer brought to the game nearly a decade ago, has made players like Nadal and Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro try to emulate him earlier in their career, with the sole purpose of course of beating him.

This has led to the young players having to reach these high standards quicker than normal. Some have, some haven't.
Those that are close are getting there, but the remains of Federer's "class" are way too good atm.

After 2012, I believe these young players will start to make their mark, so I don't think it is a step back, rather the leap forward is too long for most up and coming players.

But this has happened in the past, so its a no brainer that in, maybe 6 years, there will be a different set of names vying for the No1 spot again.

Jubbahey, certainly I think Fed and Nadal pushed the level of play up. If you wanted to win in the Fedal era you had to be able to do it all. And the young talent that came up in the peak of this era had to go threw a crucible of fire. This could be one factor.

But I honestly believe that tennis and most sports isn't always a linear progression. That while the level gets better over time as a general rule, there are transitional periods were it goes back a step. For example this lull existed after the Sampras/Agassi/Courier era where we had sort of transitional number #1s until the dawn of Federer/Nadal era. I predict a similar thing once Nadal/Djoko/Murray/and Del Po get a big longer in the tooth. And also to a certain extent when Fed leaves.

socal1976 wrote:But what would be your answer to why the current crop of 18-22 years old seem to be underperforming when compared to the previous crop (Novak, murray, Nadal, Berdy, Gasquet, and Monfils)? Are they just not as good. Has the game taken two steps forward and one step back, and the current youngsters represent the one step back?

Good question, though i'd advise against judging anyone below 20; the thing about most of the 'special ones' is that they all of a sudden rocket up the rankings from absolutely nowhere. Otherwise though you may have a point, we appear to be currently lacking a lot of up and comers challenging the top 20. I'm starting to think though that Milos Raonic is possibly going to be our 'exception'; OK, we won't be seeing grandslams just yet but considering this the lads first year in the 'big time' he's fitted in comfortably, even on clay, which was believed his weakness. He's obviously prepared physically but he seems to be more than just the big serve/forehand guy that people think he is.

But like I said, judging youngsters is tricky. Take Murray, Djokovic, Monfils and Gasquet for example. All 4 were touted as Top 5, slam winners by tomorrow when they were in their late teens, yet currently only 1 has actually won a slam, and only 2 of them have made a slam final! Gasquet and Monfils have both fallen away (but recently returned) despite what was expected of them; not something you'd have predicted in their early age, especially Gasquet. Likewise, when Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin and Federer were all young, it was the often explosive Federer who was believed to be the weakling of the pack, destined to be in Roddicks shadow; look what happened there.... Pundits and fans alike seldom know which of those lads are the ones who'll survive, the ones who will be truly special, and the ones who are riding the crest of a wave. Take me for example; initially I honestly felt Federer would be a one slam wonder! At the time he seemed too angry, too Murray-ish if you like, to really dominate; the talent was undeniable, one slam would surely come his way...... but then he got that slam, and transformed from angry Federer to the ice-cold dominating presence of the tour, who'd smash almost all records before him! It just goes to show how hard it is to judge.

However, at the same time I can see your point; at the minute there appears to be no obvious threat to the Top 10, bar Raonic (bear in mind Raonic's ranking points mostly consist of challengers right now; in a few masters time it's not going to be the same!) from the 18-21 year olds. Lads like Tomic and Young who were expected to have risen to the near top haven't pulled it off, Berankis and Nishikori are also rising at a sluggish rate compared to the meteoric rise of the special few. I would say this is unfair on the constantly injured Nishikori though; given a full season he'd threaten the Top 20. However none are exactly looking like the next Rafael Nadal, are they? It could be that the next bunch just aren't as good, like you suggest, but you just never know with the players at such a young age, because they are difficult to spot whilst they aren't in the limelight; we could find an 18 year old inside the Top 100 by the end of the year; it only takes the one wildcard entrance, the one good tournament run, to set the spark alight for the next great player.

But then we're only concentrating on the very young. There are a few late bloomers that are starting to make their way through. Dolgopolov looks as though he'll be one of these guys who really hits his stride in his mid 20's, like most players, and he'll probably really start to be a major threat in tournaments then. He's not going to win a slam but Ivan Dodig seems to be hitting his stride aged 26. Viktor Troicki is 25 and now inside the Top 20 and rising at a fair old rate. Ryan Sweeting is 23 and just won his first ATP title; potentially that could give him the confidence to make a charge on the Top 20. My point is that although we don't know how they'll get along yet, any of these lads could do what Soderling has done, and driven on from their good performances to get into the Top 10, to really perform at the slams. Only time will tell.

Anywho, i'm off on holiday now; see ya!

Have fun on your holliday, where are you going to sunny Jupiter or Uranus? Yes, it does seem that the new young guns are developing a bit later. I agree that the general prime of tennis player is mid twenties. I think however that we have seen a drop off in the current crop of 18-22 year olds from the generation that preceded them. Even Gasquet got into the top 10 very young. And none of the current guys is threatening the top 10.

I also think another explanation is that the tour is getting tougher and more based on physical fitness and durability. And young players are just not there yet physically and tend to break down more as their bodies struggle to get used to the physical nature of the modern tour. Great technicque or powerful shots is simply not good enough anymore. You have to have to be fit and durable. Also you have to have control of your emotions another difficulty for players who near teenagers. The depth of tour also has an impact I think the players today in the top 100 are a bit stronger than in the past from top to bottom. So to simply get to the point that you can make a push into the top 20 is more difficult.

So in summation I think the depth of the tour, the endurance levels required, and the physical durability needed to consistently finish deep into tournaments makes it harder on the young guns.

Rafael must be on win number 499 (senior level ATP match wins (?) at the moment).

Good thread. As others have mentioned we probably need to look at a longer list to assess what is going on. Nowadays there seems to be more money in the game and it seems far more "professional" - with top level players having "teams" around them and are rather like companies (Djokovic PLC?).

Also there doesn't seem to be any recent significant changes to the sport that might once again advantage the youth over the more experienced players. I do like "Agro Loves" argument that the above list suggest there is more skill in the game today than in the past.

Nore Staat, I agree with Mr. Agro Love on the point that the game today requires a high level skill. Everyone at the top the game has skill, but what seems to disadvantage the young players is a level of mental and physical maturity that comes with age. Obviously, the game at the highest level requires incredible technical shot making. Yet, what seems to hinder most of the young guys is that there bodies, lungs, and minds aren't good enough in their early 20s and that they have to get used to the rigors of the tour. More so then lets say 20 or 30 years ago. Big shots and weapons are still very important you can't be the best if you don't have them.

But these big shots are just not good enough on their own without the physical, mental maturity, and the durability to get by on the tour today.

Lets not forget that these days the guys on a great year may win 90 matches, Fed and Nadal may average 80-85 per year though. So to get to 500 wins you need to have already been playing 6-7 years on tour. That means to achieve it by 24 years old you need to have been amassing serious wins on the pro tour since 17-18 years old! In todays climate thats some achievement - and its by no coincidence that we are seeing fewer and fewer teenagers break into the top echelons of the game now due to the physical nature of the game. Conversely look at how many 30-ish year olds are doing well into the autumns of their careers (Melzer, Federer, Ferrer) - I think the age range of peak success in tennis is changing as the players find they have to physically and mentally toughen up over many years on tour. 100m sprinters often peak in their early 30s so you can still be highly competitive in older years - what suffers more is the power of recovery. So I think its harder for a guy to now break Borg's record and Nadal is probably as close as we'll ever come to that now - and given the difference in the tour now vs when Borg was around for physical demands, Nadal's record is nothing short of amazing. Nole may get near 500 by 25 but he needs another 130 wins and that going to take another 2 seasons so I think he'll be around 25 years 6 months which is pretty good going too!
But I dont think we'll see the guys breaking the win totals of Lendl and Connors anymore as the tour is too hard to sustain for a player over 10-15 years of top level performance of getting 70+ wins per year.

Conversely the list tells us that if you arent breaking into the list by say 25 and half years then you're not likely to become a multislam winner, exception being Agassi (anyone know when he got to 500?).

Good post Lydian, the only active player to have a chance is Nole, but he will have to be healthy and go on an absolute tear. Agassi, had a lot of success when he was young then went into an extended slump that he didn't break out of till he was in his late 20s. What I find interesting is that players nowadays are making a big impact on tour later and later. You don't see any teenage grandslam winners like Borg, Wilander, and Becker anymore. raonic the new hot thing on the tour is 21 years old.