The Record Books

Federer is up to 923 total career wins. Some record books have Vilas on 923 while another record section had him, until recently, on 926 but this has now "gone up" to 929 ! He must have sneaked in some wins when no one was watching.
  Anyway, Fed will pass this "moving" total some time early in 2014 and will have only Connors (1,253 and "counting") and Lendl (1,071"ish") ahead of him. No chance of catching these two, of course, although he might well manage to nudge ahead of Jimmy Mac with whom he now shares third place in titles won - 77.
  Have to reckon that Rafa, on 60 titles at the moment, will pass this figure too, and could conceivably pass Lendl (94 titles) although Connors (110) could be out of reach.
  An appearance at the AO in January will push Fed up to third in total GS appearances behind Agassi (61) and the overall leader.....Fabrice Santoro, with 70. Bit of a trick question for a pub quiz, that.
  Fed has the most GS wins in the Open era - 260. He's the only player to have managed at least 50 victories at each of the slams and two wins at RG next year will give him at least 60 at all four venues.
  One record NO ONE has got - somewhat surprisingly - is two titles at EACH of the slams. Fed has only won the French once, while Rafa has only won one Australian and is probably in the best position to do it.
  In contrast, Steffi Graf managed, incredibly, to win each of the slams AT LEAST FOUR TIMES. Now that's some record.

sirfredperry wrote:Federer is up to 923 total career wins. Some record books have Vilas on 923 while another record section had him, until recently, on 926 but this has now "gone up" to 929 ! He must have sneaked in some wins when no one was watching.

There were three matches for which had not been credited, hence the late adjustment.

sirfredperry wrote: Fed has the most GS wins in the Open era - 260. He's the only player to have managed at least 50 victories at each of the slams and two wins at RG next year will give him at least 60 at all four venues.

He should be able to overhaul Santoro (who incidentally had to come out of retirement for the record), barring unforeseen circumstances.

sirfredperry wrote:  One record NO ONE has got - somewhat surprisingly - is two titles at EACH of the slams. Fed has only won the French once, while Rafa has only won one Australian and is probably in the best position to do it.
  In contrast, Steffi Graf managed, incredibly, to win each of the slams AT LEAST FOUR TIMES. Now that's some record.

There is a Jim Courier interview at AO where he does mention the 'ladies' records and says they are much harder to attain.

He will probably beat some of Rosewall's records.

It's funny, I always thought of Vilas as some sort of half-crazed masochistic marathon running character who notched up insane numbers of matches (which means that my processors fail me for descriptions of Lendl and Connors), and to see Federer putting together a longevity career to match his in the modern age of such intense tennis seems bizarre.

None of Connors/Lendl/Vilas faced so many tournaments which grouped together the worlds best in the way the Modern tour does, so I think that a long stretch on today's tour is more gruelling.

I thought Nadal was done with winning slams away from RG - his win at USO means that 17 is attainable, but I think he'll need 2 more next year if he's going to do it.

B'star. The way Rafa plays on clay he could break the GS record just winning the French each year!

If he were on 12 slams now and done with winning slams away from clay he'd have to win another 5 at RG - I've been wrong about him before, but that would astonish me, it really would.

For me it now looks for the first time that Nadal is the favourite to retire ahead of Federer with number of slams. A forecast of zero, at most 1, looks fair for Federer at the moment and for Rafa a forecast of more than four seems reasonable. It's quite evenly balanced though isn't it.

2 slams for Rafa in 2014 and zero for Federer, I would Rafa as favoruite.

Zero for Rafa in 2014 and Federer is favourite.

One and it stays evenly balanced I'd say!

I also think Djokovic will win the French once, probably in the next year or two.

It's an odd thought but someone other than Rafa is going to win the French at some point. The skys will darken, thunder will clap and things will never be the same again...

Of course this did happen in 2009 but instead of the world changing forever everything returned to normal in 2010...

Bjorn Borg won 6 FO's and when he finally lost one....the tournament just carried on the next year, and was equally as successful.
Rafa, on the other hand - the rumours are the FO will cease to exist the next time he fails to win there

Perhaps the whole Philippe Chatrier court will disappear in a cloud of clay dust never to be seen again KPuff!

Now that I think about it I can't remember seeing Soderling since that fateful day when he dared challenge the natural order...

No hawkeye, Soderling walked off court that day and was literally never seen again. He didn't even turn up for the next round. Some say he ascended to heaven, others that he simply knew that nothing could ever match that and decided to retire at once.

Some people are still looking for him, but so far they have no leads.

On a more serious note, Soderling's victory grows in stature with every passing year that Rafa adds another FO trophy. If it had ended Rafa's dominance at the FO that would have been one thing, but to beat him at his absolute peak was something else.

Rather like Krajicek beating Sampras at Wimbledon right in the middle of his 7 titles.

If it wasn't for Krajicek Pete would have had 8 straight Wimbledons!

If if wasn't for Soderling Rafa would be targeting 10 in a row next year!

Expanding this a little, just how many overall titles do you think that Rafa, currently on 60, will eventually accumulate.
He should overtake Rog (77), certainly. I would think 90 is a distinct possibility. Could it be more, do you think?
Perhaps people could hazard a guess for Djoko, too, who is currently on 41, I think.

90 is almost certainly beyond reach, given his age. 77 is possible, but even at 6 tournaments per year over the next 3 years, which again is probably against the odds, you'd be looking at 2017 before he reaches 78. That's assuming Fed doesn't win a few 250s/500s in the meantime.
Djoko could maybe reach 60 - 65.

Julius. You sound a tad pessimistic about Rafa. Surely, if fit, he's gonna win 4 or 5 clay court titles alone each year. Rog's best bet, as you say, is to try to get the bar a little higher himself. Another for the record books would be Fed winning at least one title for yet another year.
The Djoko figure could be about right. With he and Rafa it could be all about how well their bodies hold up so they can continue title hunting into their 30s.

I am confident that Rafa will retire with more slam wins than Roger.He is four behind Roger but perhaps has three or four years left in him. Now we all know how untouchable he is on clay so theoretically he could wipe out that four on clay alone (a big if granted). On top of that we have all the other surfaces and Rafa has proven he can win slams away from clay so who will stand in his way in the next three or four years? Primarily, Novak Djokovic springs to mind and unless he rediscovers his steel-like nerve and golden form of 2010 he isn't guaranteed to always beat Rafa. Then we have Andy Murray (recovering from back surgery) so will he come back all guns blazing and will the new Murray (under Lendl's guidance) find the key that opens doors to wins over Rafa? Going on only pre-Lendl days then that is unlikely but Murray has improved and matured under Lendl so who knows? After that are there any players (present just now) that you'd back to beat Rafa? I can't think of any.

Rafa's titles year by year for the last 5 years :-
2009 - 5
2010 - 7
2011 - 4
2012 - 4
2013 - 10

Let's assume he won't play the 250s again.
Is 6 per year for the next 3 years pessimistic?

CC - good analysis. Certainly the slam winners in 2014 are likely to come from Nole, Rafa and Andy - and may be just the first of those two if Andy struggles to get back to his best.
Praps we ought to consider just how many titles Andy M will get. He should pass 40 comfortably, atlhouh 50 might be a bit difficult. The 30+ age fitness proviso applies to him, too

Also, by the time the FO 2016 comes around, Rafa will be 30 years old. Only Connors and Agassi have won more than 2 slams over the age of 30, so it would be wrong to assume that Rafa will also do that. Safer to assume he could win 1.
That would mean to reach 18 he needs to win 4 of the next 8. Is it pessimistic to think that won't happen, given that he's won just 4 of the last 12.
Only Agassi has won 5 slams after the age Rafa is now - hardly a certainty that Rafa will repeat that.

Consistency is Andy's biggest Achilles and will stop him scaling impressive heights of slam wins/title wins in my opinion. Could see him perhaps winning 45 titles and perhaps 3 or 4 slams if he can recover to his best (or better) after his back injury.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Also, by the time the FO 2016 comes around, Rafa will be 30 years old. Only Connors and Agassi have won more than 2 slams over the age of 30, so it would be wrong to assume that Rafa will also do that. Safer to assume he could win 1.
That would mean to reach 18 he needs to win 4 of the next 8. Is it pessimistic to think that won't happen, given that he's won just 4 of the last 12.
Only Agassi has won 5 slams after the age Rafa is now - hardly a certainty that Rafa will repeat that.

Yes winning slams aged 30+ is very rare and seems to be only achieved by all-time greats - well Rafa qualifies in that grade so he must stand a chance of winning a slam in his 30's. Besides who stops him winning the French Open in the next three years and who stands in his way in the other slams? They all have to be taken into account and Rafa has won two of the last three slams - the momentum is all with him. These pointers tell me (injuries aside) that he will surpass Fed's total slam haul.

Who stands in his way? Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro. Darcis? Rosol? Soderling? After Fed won his 5th USO, who stood in his way? Some guy called Del Potro - no way! Oh, hang on.
Who stood in Rafa's way in the AO and USO previously, given he's only got 3 of those in total, in how many attempts? Now we're to assume he's going to win 3 more of those in the next 4 attempts (next 2 years)?
As for momentum, it changes all the time. Remember the days when Fed was a shoo-in for 20 slams, and Djokovic a shoo-in for 12?

One thing that has to be considered is just how well Rafa plays at number one. It seems that Djoko can beat him regularly when he, Djoko, is number two to Rafa's numero uno (just look at the 2011 year results).
Rafa always seems to me to be a little uneasy at the top of the tree. Prefers to be the hunter rather than the hunted, as some have said.
Some clever stats guys can probably tell us just how many of Djoko's wins over Rafa have come when the Spaniard was number one. Probably quite a few.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Who stands in his way? Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro. Darcis? Rosol? Soderling? After Fed won his 5th USO, who stood in his way? Some guy called Del Potro - no way! Oh, hang on.
Who stood in Rafa's way in the AO and USO previously, given he's only got 3 of those in total, in how many attempts? Now we're to assume he's going to win 3 more of those in the next 4 attempts (next 2 years)?
As for momentum, it changes all the time. Remember the days when Fed was a shoo-in for 20 slams, and Djokovic a shoo-in for 12?

So how many more slams do you see Rafa winning? Djokovic and Murray stand in the way of course but both are not clad-iron certainties to beat Rafa (far from it). Del Potro - I cannot see Del Boy beating Rafa in a slam. Best of three match yes but not in a slam. Darcis and Rosol aren't going to repeat one-off wins and Soderling is as good as finished. I am giving out reasoned pointers why Rafa will surpass Roger - those being his massively impressive French Open record, time still being on his side and he generally has the beating of everyone at the top of the sport at the moment barring Novak.

But if you look at the statistical history of tennis, time isn't on side, it's actually against him. He'll be 28 at the next FO.
Does he have a chance at 18 slams? Yes, an outside one, not a certainty by any means.
It's entirely possible that Murray, Djoko and Del Porto will win the AO, Wimby, USO (not in that order, or even with all 3 of them winning 1 each). That would leave Rafa with the FO, and 14 slams coming up to 2015. Is he guaranteed the 2015 AO? No. Can we say with certainly he'll still be at his peak in 18 months time, for the 2015 FO? No.
Etc etc.

Del Potro last won a slam in 2009 ( his only one), Murray is recovering from back surgery and that leaves Novak. I never said it was a certainty but I would be more inclined to say he will do it given current evidence.

This year I thought Djokovic was finally going to beat Raffa at Roland Garros during that mammoth semi-final of theirs.  That could have been a pivotal moment* between them (like the AO 2009 final between Federer & Nadal).  So next year at RG is going to be interesting (they would be seeded to meet in the final). *Interestingly Djokovic would go on to lose in the final of both the Wimbledon & US Open under relatively tame circumstances for him

If we say that Nadal doesn't have long left in the game, then maybe the same could be said for Djokovic (although his body still seems to be good - carrying no obvious weakness) and Murray (just had a back operation).  Looking beyond these three I see no-one behind them able to fill the vacuum they would leave.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Del Potro last won a slam in 2009 ( his only one), Murray is recovering from back surgery and that leaves Novak. I never said it was a certainty but I would be more inclined to say he will do it given current evidence.

OK, I disagree. Historical evidence (including recent historical evidence) indicates the odds are very much against it.

With regard to Nadal winning more slams. I am not 100% convinced that Murray can match Nadal compared to his match up with Djokovic. So whereas Djokovic could be beaten by both Murray & Nadal, I suspect only Djokovic could beat Nadal (assuming everyone is in full fitness).

Of course we have yet to see a fully fit grand slam winning Murray against Nadal in a slam.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Del Potro last won a slam in 2009 ( his only one), Murray is recovering from back surgery and that leaves Novak. I never said it was a certainty but I would be more inclined to say he will do it given current evidence.

OK, I disagree. Historical evidence (including recent historical evidence) indicates the odds are very much against it.

Given that Federer got 4 of his slams after the year he turned 27, despite having to face Nadal, I'm a bit puzzled how recent history shows us that the odds are very much against Rafa doing the same. Of course, you also think that Federer was past his peak already by 27 and I take it we can agree that Rafa certainly didn't look past his peak at the US Open? Recent evidence would seem to suggest that Rafa winning 4 more slams in the next four years is highly plausible. Of course, mentally he will also have that target to keep him going in a way Fed did not after 2009.

Its not a certainty but I would put the odds at better than 50-50 that Rafa will at least equal Fed.

Nore Staat wrote:With regard to Nadal winning more slams. I am not 100% convinced that Murray can match Nadal compared to his match up with Djokovic. So whereas Djokovic could be beaten by both Murray & Nadal, I suspect only Djokovic could beat Nadal (assuming everyone is in full fitness).

Of course we have yet to see a fully fit grand slam winning Murray against Nadal in a slam.

We won't know how it will go until they do face off. However personally I think Murray has the game to play Nadal in very similar style to Novak. The last set and a half of the Tokyo final in 2011 was basically adopting that blueprint. The question is whether mentally he trusts himself to play Nadal that way in a slam. Its a matchup that tennis needs. Amazing they haven't played for two years when you think how many times they have each faced Novak in that spell.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Del Potro last won a slam in 2009 ( his only one), Murray is recovering from back surgery and that leaves Novak. I never said it was a certainty but I would be more inclined to say he will do it given current evidence.

OK, I disagree. Historical evidence (including recent historical evidence) indicates the odds are very much against it.

Given that Federer got 4 of his slams after the year he turned 27, despite having to face Nadal, I'm a bit puzzled how recent history shows us that the odds are very much against Rafa doing the same. Of course, you also think that Federer was past his peak already by 27 and I take it we can agree that Rafa certainly didn't look past his peak at the US Open? Recent evidence would seem to suggest that Rafa winning 4 more slams in the next four years is highly plausible. Of course, mentally he will also have that target to keep him going in a way Fed did not after 2009.

Its not a certainty but I would put the odds at better than 50-50 that Rafa will at least equal Fed.

If Rafa were to equal Fed with 4 slams after 27, he would end up on 15 (having already won 2 of them this year).

Federer got 2 slams once he hit 28. Even if Rafa wins the next AO, he would need 4 slams after hitting 28 to surpass Roger - which would then mean a total of 7 after hitting 27, which would be 3 more than Roger and 2 more than anyone else in history. Does that clarify why the odds are against it, given the existing historical evidence?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Federer got 2 slams once he hit 28. Even if Rafa wins the next AO, he would need 4 slams after hitting 28 to surpass Roger - which would then mean a total of 7 after hitting 27, which would be 3 more than Roger and 2 more than anyone else in history.  Does that clarify why the odds are against it, given the existing historical evidence?

If age limiting statistics are going to be used then why apply them just to Nadal? There are two other players that many speculate will win more slams who are due to "hit 27" in the next few months. Someones going to have to appear soon in order to steal a few slams from these aging veterans.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Federer got 2 slams once he hit 28. Even if Rafa wins the next AO, he would need 4 slams after hitting 28 to surpass Roger - which would then mean a total of 7 after hitting 27, which would be 3 more than Roger and 2 more than anyone else in history.  Does that clarify why the odds are against it, given the existing historical evidence?

If age limiting statistics are going to be used then why apply them just to Nadal?

I guess because the speculation was whether Rafa could surpass Fed.

Fed won 5 slams after turning 27 and 4 slams after he was the age Rafa is now. However you want to spin the numbers the most recent evidence based on an ATG is that Rafa is on track to match Fed. I think you said above that Andre won 5 slams at an older age than Rafa. So two of the last three ATGs to reach Rafa's age have won at least enough slams from his age to equal Fed's record. That ignores the fact that all the evidence is that the age profile on the ATP tour is increasing as well.

Yes, Fed won 5 slams after reaching 27. If Rafa were to do that, he would reach 16 slams. Agassi also won 5 slams after reaching 27.
For Rafa to surpass Fed (which was the criterion Craig stated), he would have to win 7 slams after reaching 27. That's 2 more than anyone has previously done.
And also win slams in probably 12 consecutive years (minimum 11). The next best to that would be 8 years.
The fact that so many records would not just have to be broken, but broken by some margin, suggests that the odds are against it - whichever way you want to spin it.

But as we know record setting to Rafa is commonplace. In short - if anyone can he can.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, Fed won 5 slams after reaching 27. If Rafa were to do that, he would reach 16 slams. Agassi also won 5 slams after reaching 27.
For Rafa to surpass Fed (which was the criterion Craig stated), he would have to win 7 slams after reaching 27. That's 2 more than anyone has previously done.
And also win slams in probably 12 consecutive years (minimum 11). The next best to that would be 8 years.
The fact that so many records would not just have to be broken, but broken by some margin, suggests that the odds are against it - whichever way you want to spin it.

But why do you keep going back to when they were 27? Surely the appropriate comparison is from the age Rafa is now? As indicated, he only has to match Fed and not do as well as Andre to get to 17. As for the consecutive years slam wins, isnt that a record he already owns? Would you honestly say you think his prospects of winning at least one slam in 2014 and 2015 are less than 50%?

Ok then - the age Rafa is now - 27 years and 6 months. After reaching 27 1/2 Fed won 4 more slams. Rafa needs 5 more to get to 18 (the initial argument was 'surpass' Fed, so let's stick to that). So he has do more than match Fed.
Only Agassi has done that after 27 1/2 and he had half the wear and tear that Rafa's had.
That's not to say Rafa can't do it, but the odds are against it I'd say, in the same way they were against Fed and Agassi.

JHM has a valid argument as regards Age.  But so do the others that point out if Nadal is not winning - someone else must be - then noting that below Djoko & Murray (post back op) - there is no-one as yet that can be identified to provide a consistent challenge in the slams.  They would claim we need to Mind the Gap.

I think everyone understands that historically players win less as they approach 30. The last three great champions before Rafa have won 3, 4 and 5 slams past the age he is now. If it was 0, 0 and 1 I could understand the argument JHM was making. As it is, recent history suggests Rafa winning 4 or 5 slams would merely be about par for the course.

Why is Agassi, who is older than Sampras, considered one of the last 3 great champions, rather than the younger Sampras?
If the fact that he played on is counted, then the fact that Sampras felt he could no longer win slams, and thus retired, should also be counted.

I think Nadal is going to pass fed's total tournament wins and has a very good shot of equaling or surpassing fed's total of 77. I think Novak wil probably end up in the high 60s and has a shot to get to the 70 plus tournament wins which would put him in Mac's category and above Andre. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that if he stays healthy he could surpass Fed's 77 assuming Fed doesn't win too many more and that Novak stay healthy. But that would be a tough ask. Murray I see topping off in the 50s.

To get to the low 70s Novak would have to avg. 6 tournament wins for the next 5 years which is a tough ask but pretty doable assuming good fitness.

Born Slippy wrote:I think everyone understands that historically players win less as they approach 30. The last three great champions before Rafa have won 3, 4 and 5 slams past the age he is now. If it was 0, 0 and 1 I could understand the argument JHM was making. As it is, recent history suggests Rafa winning 4 or 5 slams would merely be about par for the course.

I see it the same way, Rafa is well on his way to equaling and or passing Fed's 17 titles. If that happens he will have more slams, more masters, and probably more tournament wins. Fed would have the most weeks at number and ye #1s, but with his new improved game on hardcourts he has the potential to keep racking up slams. Novak as well has a chance to get to double digits. I mean would be surprised if over the next 16 slams that Djokovic and Nadal took 8 of them, I don't think this unrealistic. But sport is fickle, injury and the rise of some unforseen prodigy can always come in to change the equation.

socal1976 wrote:I mean would be surprised if over the next 16 slams that Djokovic and Nadal took 8 of them, I don't think this unrealistic.

Your typing too fast
If they share the next 16 slams, where does that leave Murray, who you say is bound to win a few more?

Took 8 of them between the two of them, that leaves 8 for the field.

Oh right - sorry, I thought you meant 8 each!

Another factor JHM. You say Roger won five more slams past the age of 27 but remember that was at a time when he had Rafa to contend with, an emerging Novak, Del Potro in his prime and Murray as well. What does Rafa hav now? No Roger (seemingly), Novak striving for his golden form, Murray returning from back surgery so it is unknown how this will affect him and Del Potro striving to rediscover slam winning form. I would say that circumstances dictate that Rafa has a less daunting set of contenders than Roger had at the same age.

CC, you're saying that Fed won his later 5 slams in a golden era, but now Rafa is playing in a weak era, so he should be a shoo-in for 5 more then Would be a bit embarrassing if he didn't get 5 more!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why is Agassi, who is older than Sampras, considered one of the last 3 great champions, rather than the younger Sampras?
If the fact that he played on is counted, then the fact that Sampras felt he could no longer win slams, and thus retired, should also be counted.

Sampras - 3
Federer - 4
Agassi - 5

As you say, Sampras faded quicker than Agassi or Federer (possibly due at least in part to that thesalossis(?) condition he had) and even he managed 3!

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, you're saying that Fed won his later 5 slams in a golden era, but now Rafa is playing in a weak era, so he should be a shoo-in for 5 more then ;)Would be a bit embarrassing if he didn't get 5 more!

I am saying that Fed managed the feat with far more daunting obstacles in his way - of that there can be no doubt. When you virtually lose a slam contender of Fed's standing, put injuries on Del Potro and Murray that may leave them forever short of their best and Novak struggling to reach the golden form of 2010/11 then work it out for yourself if it is less daunting now than two or so years ago. Heck even the media haven't mentioned the golden word for a while.