Rafa Records

Nadal now stands on the brink of an important record (in my view) of winning every slam twice. While Emerson and Laver also achieved this, Emerson did so in the amateur era when slams were second tier events (never more true than the 1960s). Emerson may have 13 slams, the same as Nadal, but Nadal would be far ahead if you got some experts to rank the greats.

Rod Laver achieved 2 of each slam, but the first of each slam was in the amatuer era. Of course, Laver achieved the calendar year grand slam at the age of 30, quite possibly if the open era had started 5 years earlier he might have managed 2 of each in the open era. However where Rafa will stands alone if he beats Warwinka is that no-one since Laver has achieved 2 of each slam, ie no-one achieved 2 in the open era.  Of course, you could argue that Agassi's 1 of each slam in the 90s, when surfaces were more different, is just as impressive, then again who did he have to beat in the finals - Medvedev and Ivanisevic for instance. Rafa almost always has to beat Federer or Djokovic to win a slam.

Another thing Rafa will do if he wins against Warwinka is pass Pete Sampras is the greatness stakes in my view. With 14 slams each and no FO for Pete, I think that puts Rafa ahead. A bit debatable, since Pete has more weeks and more years at no 1, and probably other records, but probably Rafa ahead for me - maybe tied if Warwinka wins. A win tomorrow might be enough to put Rafa clearly ahead of the likes of Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Sampras and into the top tier of discussion. My view is that the top ones are Federer, Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzalez and Bill Tilden. I think Rafa is heading towards that category with a win tomorrow.

The other thing he's managing to do at the moment is address (to some extent) his relatively low weeks at number 1, vs other greats. The way things are going, he could stay at number one until at least the US Open unless Djokovic puts together a big run.

Another thing that would be achieved if he beats Warwinka is to have one at least one grand slam tournament for 10 years in a row. According to wikipedia, no-one else has more than 8.

Another one would be to win 10 French Opens in his career (8 so far). I'm not sure if anyone even won 8 of one slam (or any tournament? anyone?) and 10 is a nice round number that would really stand alone by a clear margin. I can see him getting to 10 FOs.

If he wins the AO, then another thing that's up for grabs is the non-calendar year grand slam. Actually think the FO is definately not going to be easy. Djokovic was very close to beating him last year and this may be his time, who knows? Ideally Nadal needs to avoid even playing Djokovic at the FO in order to go into Wimbledon fully fit. Would be interesting for him to go into Wimbledon with the non-calendar year grand slam at stake. Of course, in the last couple of years he has really struggled on the surface, possibly due to the effect on this knees of reaching for the low bounce, and I personally still think Murray is no 1 on grass until proven otherwise, but it will be interesting. Would I be right in thinking no-one has won 4 slams in a row since Rod Laver in 1969?

Personally, I see the calendar year grand slam as much the greater achivement, although admittedly that may be somewhat illogical. Normally, with any other player, it would be absurd to mention the calendar year grand slam before they had even won the AO. For most players, in fact any other, I wouldn't mention it until after the FO. But before you have a go at me here, consider not the fact that Rafa's head to head is 12-0 vs Warwinka, but instead the more telling statistic, that in sets it's 26-0. Yes, Stan Warwinka has never even won a set against Nadal (despite a few close tiebreaks). I watched them play at the world tour finals, and it was genuinely close, 7-6 7-6, but on a slam, on a slow surface in a night match, does anyone really see the shock win? And we also know Rafa only lost one match at FO in his whole career. So I'm saying it's fair to speculate on the calendar year grand slam.

A calendar year grand slam for Rafa would mean simultaneosly tying the slam record as well, so it could be enough for GOAT (debatable). Certainly it would be enough for the media to annoint him. I'd give him a roughly 90% chance to win the AO, 60% for the FO, 25% for Wimbledon, 35% for US Open. I make that about a 5% chance for the calendar year grand slam this year. Certainly would be fun to see Nadal vs Federer at either Wimbledon or the US Open, with the calendar year grand slam at stake, and Federer trying to deny Rafa what he once denied him, and the slam record going down to one match, with the GOAT perhaps even at stake. Maybe that would be a fitting final act to a rivlary, which has become predictable, at least on the slower surfaces of the first half of the year. (Although I suppose you could argue if Rafa wins the AO and FO this year he's likely to get such a record anyway.)

I am going to look pretty silly now if Warwinka wins, but I don't mind, I wouldn't mind to see Warwinka win a slam anyway.

If Rafa does win the final, I'd increase my top 3 of Sampras, Laver and Federer to a top 4 to include him.
I don't put them in any order, because a) it's virtually impossible and b) it's entirely needless IMHO.

A double career slam is indeed a very significant achievement.

Henman Bill wrote:I'm not sure if anyone even won 8 of one slam (or any tournament? anyone?)

Pancho won US Pro Championships (1953-1961) with a break in 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Pro_Tennis_Championships

JuliusHMarx wrote:If Rafa does win the final, I'd increase my top 3 of Sampras, Laver and Federer to a top 4 to include him.
I don't put them in any order, because a) it's virtually impossible and b) it's entirely needless IMHO.

A double career slam is indeed a very significant achievement.

I'm with you on that one Julius. I prefer to rate them in tiers, I would also include Borg in my top tier personally, mainly because he still got to double figures and never really played the AO. Agassi, McEnroe, Connors in the second tier. To try and pin specific numbers on players is when it becomes tricky.

A very good article, HB. Thanks for taking the time to write it, a very enjoyable read.

I remember watching Sampras break Emerson's record and that seemed amazing at the time. And should Nadal win on Sunday, the remarkable records put together by today's greats at times just beggars belief.

Yeah, it'd be massive.

Like Feds black mark is the h2h, and Pete's is the lack of a FO (though in fairness that was in the day of diversified surfaces and specialists) Rafa has the problem of so little time standing at #1.

There's only Laver with every box ticked I suppose, but different sport really.

One issue for Laver is his head to head with Pancho Gonzalez. When they started playing in 1964, Laver was 26 (arguably the absolute peak age for a tennis player) and Gonzalez was 36 and yet in that year, Gonzalez won 8-5, pretty impressive numbers.

Laver does win the head the head 38-21 overall, but Gonzalez was still playing him at the age of 42. In 1970, Gonzalez "wins" 3-2, a 42 year old vs a 32-year old holding the calendar year grand slam..pretty impressive stuff...

I also read once that Laver lost 18 matches in the year he won the calendar year grand slam. Federer had years when he lost about 4, 5, 6 matches but just couldn't get past Rafa at the FO.

I was thinking ---if Pete played today, wouldn't he still win zero FOs and Wimbledons maybe instead of 7 take about 4 or so. US and Australians maybe a little less too? I think if Pete played today he would win less slams overall, I don't think in that sense that more diversified surfaces made it harder in those days. For slow court players yes they would have reaped more rewards today.

Conversely, if Nadal had played in the 1990s he probably won have won less tournaments as well. the FO contenders were more competitive, he might have lost the odd match, and won 1 or 2 tournaments less. Meanwhile he would have perhaps won less on other surfaces. Mind you I think he would have adapted his game more aggressively to hard court actually. Not sure about grass.

Anyway my point is it's probably fair to compare Pete and Rafa in terms of did they win all the slams, or how many slams did they win in total, neither being particularly disadvantaged by the era that they played in.

Yeah but LF, its not the ones you lose but the ones you win.

HB....no. Sampras had a DHBH until 16 then changed to take advantage of fast surfaces. He was no mean ralleyer, so with his innate timing & athleticism, a DHBH, and THAT serve...in today's conditions he would have been formidable. The greats would be greats in any era because at the heart of it all is mindset, athleticism & timing.

I was thinking that if Pete had 4 Slams a year set up similarly, leaning towards his game, he'd have scored many more. As it was the FO was so different it asked too much.

In the same way as now we have career Slams (and near ones for Djokovic) growing on trees now.

And lets not forget Borg limiting himself to 3 Slams a year.

FO asked too much for all the polarised fast court players....McEnroe, Edberg, Becker. Exactly re: current career slams.

bogbrush wrote:I was thinking that if Pete had 4 Slams a year set up similarly, leaning towards his game, he'd have scored many more. As it was the FO was so different it asked too much.

In the same way as now we have career Slams (and near ones for Djokovic) growing on trees now.

And lets not forget Borg limiting himself to 3 Slams a year.

Lets not forget Connors doing the same!

Indeed! And boycotting the French when he was cleaning everything up.

Connors never played 4 slams in a year. 1976-1978 (peak years age-wise) he only played Wimby and USO.
Borg only played all 4 once.

Would Connors have beat Borg at FO74?
Sure, Sampras and Agassi missed loads of AOs too.

lydian wrote:Would Connors have beat Borg at FO74?.

 
Can you imagine the endless debates if the internet had been around then.

Rafa is a tennis titan and seems to be a nice guy too.

One day I'm going to have to figure out exactly why I don't like him.

lydian wrote:Would Connors have beat Borg at FO74?
Sure, Sampras and Agassi missed loads of AOs too.

Probably; he won their first three meetings on clay and only lost first in 1977.

I agree and have explained why before too...seem to remember Connors mauled Borg a couple weeks prior to FO at Rome...

No Connors only beat him on US clay - Indianapolis & USO twice

Didn't Connors get banned from the FO, instead of boycotting it? Connors was pretty untouchable in 74 so he would have had a real shot at the calendar year slam.

Banned in 74, boycotted the other years after that.

Good spot JHM. US clay is faster than grass!

No it is not Lydian I have played on green (USA) clay and red crushed brick. The green clay is a little faster but very close to the red clay

I understand the enthusiasm, but talking now about calendar year slam.... come on

wawrinka is going to play on sunday as far as I know... lets see what happens. after that, we have 5 masters prior to roland garros. lets enjoy the season.

as for roland garros... I am sure nole will die for it.

naxroy wrote:I understand the enthusiasm, but talking now about calendar year slam.... come on

wawrinka is going to play on sunday as far as I know... lets see what happens. after that, we have 5 masters prior to roland garros. lets enjoy the season.

as for roland garros... I am sure nole will die for it.

I agree I don't think the competition at the highest levels. Novak and Andy will have something to say at the USO and Wimbeldon and I think Novak will be right there with Nadal on the clay at the FO. He is a great player if anyone can do it would be Nadal but he has had a great deal of top level competition from the other two guys. Before the season I predicted Djoko would win the FO, he has been damn close two years running and has beaten Nadal at every other major clay court tournament. I still believe that Novak can blunt a healthy and in form Nadal on clay, he can't always do it but Nadal's spin just doesn't seem to bother him like other players. Nadal's never say die attitude and ability to run down every ball annoys everyone including Novak, but the high bouncing spin seems to impact him less than other players.

nole was not that close in 2012... but yes... he almost made itlast year

  

I hope you all enjoyed my extremely insightful article about Nadal's inevitable victory over Warwinka and all the records it would lead him to, and the chance he has at the calendar year grand slam.

Is that what it was about? I thought he was making a new CD - hence 'Rafa records'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is that what it was about? I thought he was making a new CD - hence 'Rafa records'.

'Spin when you're winning'?

naxroy wrote:nole was not that close in 2012... but yes... he almost made itlast year

Like Federer had to wait for someone else to take Nadal out to win RG 2009, perhaps Djokovic also needs someone else (like Wawrinka or Del Potro or Ferrer or Berdych) to provide some assistance.

None of them are up to the job to be honest. If Nadal loses at RG it's more likely Djokovic or an injury that will be responsible.

Henman Bill wrote:None of them are up to the job to be honest. If Nadal loses at RG it's more likely Djokovic or an injury that will be responsible.

Disagree with that HB. It may even be a R128 loss, no one knows. Till yesterday, not many gave Wawrinka a chance, but yet today he holds the trophy.

I am also loathe to have this injury escape clause embedded in each loss. There is a large discussion on that topic elsewhere.

He definitely wasn't feeling bad when he went 4-1 up in the 3rd?

Anyway, RG will be interesting, Delpo will have to change his game if he wants to go far, Stan should make atleast the QF, who knows which Murray will turn up. Then there's Dimi getting better & Better!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He definitely wasn't feeling bad when he went 4-1 up in the 3rd?

Anyway, RG will be interesting, Delpo will have to change his game if he wants to go far, Stan should make atleast the QF, who knows which Murray will turn up. Then there's Dimi getting better & Better!

I don't think Dimitrov has the game for clay but I reckon he'll be making noises at Queen's and Wimbledon. Wawrinka must be looking at at least a SF in the French too.

I'd not get too excited about Stan, this always happens.

bogbrush wrote:I'd not get too excited about Stan, this always happens.

What do you mean?  He is the third best player in the world and you have no faith in him?  He is the only player who still has a shot at a calendar year grand slam this year - not Rafa, not Nole, not Andy nor Roger.  Clearly he must be something special.

The Special Juan wrote:I don't think Dimitrov has the game for clay

Why not?  He took a set off Rafa on clay and beat Djokovic there too.

summerblues wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:I don't think Dimitrov has the game for clay

Why not?  He took a set off Rafa on clay and beat Djokovic there too.

He was given a right royal thrashing in the tournament that really mattered though. I don't think his game is good enough but his movement doesn't seem great at the moment. It's nowhere near Raonic's lumbering obviously but I think he can look at bit heavy on his feet. Plus, clay is ultra physical and he hasn't got the physique yet. That will come though provided he does the hard gym hours.

I agree with Bogbrush. There's a tendency to get carried away on the back of some form and start to overrate the player a bit. Warwinka has certainly proved he deserves a top 8 position but from his current position of 3 there is only one way it's going to go.

Remember he turned his back on this family to dedicate himself to tennis, you couldn't blame him if he decided he wanted to spend more time with family, or even just soak up more sponsorship deals and enjoy the limelight, rather than keep putting in the hours.

QF in any slam is still a good result for him.

HB, I am not being serious (unless you think I really mean it when I say he has a shot at a calendar GS), I also agree with BB.

Henman Bill wrote:Remember he turned his back on this family to dedicate himself to tennis

I believe he separated from his wife for a period (maybe a year) but they got back together since then.  The old fashioned guy that I am I was quite happy to see his ranking drop after he separated and then start improving only after they got back together (I am fairly certain they were back together by AO13).

The Special Juan wrote:He was given a right royal thrashing in the tournament that really mattered though.

Well of course but at the level he was at last year, even beating him in a Masters tournament was quite impressive.

The Special Juan wrote:I don't think his game is good enough but his movement doesn't seem great at the moment.

I actually think his movement is miles better than it used to be; quite good TBH.

Yes it's improved out of sight. His time will come.

I have no idea why people think Dimi isn't a good mover.
He has serious wheels and flexibility second to only djoko... or monfils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRiAsKVJVN4

summerblues wrote:HB, I am not being serious (unless you think I really mean it when I say he has a shot at a calendar GS), I also agree with BB.

Henman Bill wrote:Remember he turned his back on this family to dedicate himself to tennis

I believe he separated from his wife for a period (maybe a year) but they got back together since then.  The old fashioned guy that I am I was quite happy to see his ranking drop after he separated and then start improving only after they got back together (I am fairly certain they were back together by AO13).

I did realise you weren't being serious.

I didn't know that Stan got back together with this wife. I did notice 1 year after splitting he made no improvement at all. So he actually did better while they were together again.

LuvSports! wrote:I have no idea why people think Dimi isn't a good mover.
He has serious wheels and flexibility second to only djoko... or monfils.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRiAsKVJVN4

He's very rapid over the ground, but I think in the past it was more his balance and turning that were the issue. Movement comes down to multiple factors...base speed, lateral movement, balance, anticipation, and so on.

He has improved hugely though, he's now a good mover for sure

Henman Bill wrote:Remember he turned his back on this family to dedicate himself to tennis, you couldn't blame him if he decided he wanted to spend more time with family, or even just soak up more sponsorship deals and enjoy the limelight, rather than keep putting in the hours.

Federer has all family, fortune and fame. Wawrinka can have them too. Very unlikely that he [Wawrinka] will do a Bartoli.

Happy to see his hard work being rewarded. He can continue and make even more money. He probably will never be a Fedalovic, but he can be a good Murray.

Regarding Dimitrov, he is still a WIP, not the finished product yet. He is not close to retirement either.

This obviously has not come to pass now but I have to say that the career slam has become devalued in my opinion. When you think that after Laver, no-one completed the career grand slam until Agassi over 30 years later and yet in recent years, two top players have managed it and both are just one makor away from doing the double. Also would anyone bet against Djokovic doing it given his record on Clay.

To mind, Agassi's achievement is the greatest one, even greater than Laver's calender grand slam. It's mind boggling to think that Agassi was able to win in four so different tournaments.

If conditions stay as they are and any player is dominant for two or three years, you would just expect that player to complete the set.

I think the achievements are roughly on a par.

While Agassi's achievement is more impressive in the sense of surface variation, it is less impressive than Nadal's in terms of calibre of opponent.

Agassi's preferred surface was hard. On clay, he faced a nervous Medvedev in the final. On grass, a nervous Ivanisevic to claim his one FO and one W in tight 5 set matches. Those are good players but they only claimed 1 slam between them while Rafa had to beat Federer repeatedly at FO, and Wimbledon, and in his AO, as well as having to fight Djokovic at the US Open.

Roger's is more tricky. His FIRST win on each slam included some relatively weaker opponents, but a lot of those tournaments were followed up with further wins against others. Eg his first W may have been Phillipoussis in the final but his last one was an impressive combo against peak Djokovic and Murray. So his is probably on a par for me as well.

You could also say that Rafa beat Puerta and Berdych to win RG and W.

But thats not the point I make. The best way to show it is in a demonstration:

From US Open 2008 to US Open 2010 inclusive, there were 9 majors. Del Potro won one of them. Roger (b. Murray in US 08, Soderling RG 09, Roddick W 09, Murray AO10) and Rafa (b. Federer AO 09, Soderling RG 10, Berdych W 10, Djokovic US 10) each completed the set.

So the competition point only goes so far. Even in a time of great competition, you dont have to meet great opponents to win these titles. Only Nadal's victory over Federer and Federer's victory over Roddick can be considered truly competitive matches. Rafa's win over Djokovic was pre-ironman Nole and he was a burnt out after finally beating Federer, and Federer's match against Murray was a bit of a walkover.

No, Agassi's is jaw dropping. I was talking to my brother today and he was arguing that the players in those days would not have had the athleticism to cope with today's players. I showed him the AO final between Agassi and Sampras to rebut it. It was like watching a different sport. And then to go from that to win Roland Garros. And beating Ivanisevic at Wimbledon was no mean feat