The Blot On The Copybook

We regularly have statistics quoted to show how good a player is but I thought I'd reverse it.

Which statistic is a player's bête noire? What are the weak spots in otherwise impressive career stats? Which stat is the biggest indictment against a players greatness?

I'll offer some:

Roger Federer
5th set record of just 54% (22-19).
An oddity among generally amazing career numbers.

Rafael Nadal
Weeks since first reaching #2: 421
Weeks at #1: 141
Weeks not #1: 280
Can a player be considered the greatest ever when two thirds of the time they are not even the best on tour?

Novak Djokovic
Slam finals played: 14
Slam finals won: 7
Often draws praise for mental toughness but in fact has a low win rate on the biggest occasions.

Andy Murray
Clay tournaments played: 35
Finals of clay tournaments played: 0
Coupled with a low win rate of 63%, this surface is consistently fruitless for such an accomplished player.

Pete Sampras
Best result at Roland Garros: SF (once)
In 2000, when he won his 7th Wimbledon and 13th slam overall, his last 4 RG results had been 1R, 2R, 2R, 3R.

Ivan Lendl
Slam finals lost: 11 (out of 19)
Famously lost his first 4 finals before beating McEnroe at RG in 84. Only won 7 of his next 14 finals though, so never became truly ruthless at slam level.

Well, some interesting stats ! The Sampras French stat and the Murray clay-court stat are, I think, blots on the copybook. But all the other apparent "failures" are products of success.
Fed has been good enough to avoid many five-setters and I'm sure most players would be only too delighted to reach 19 slam finals even if 11 of them ended in defeat. Ditto, the Djoko GS final "failure".
Yes, you could say that Rafa could, or should, have had more weeks at number one. But it's not as if there's a lot of duffers around at the top, and 141 weeks at the top aint bad.

Did you know that Nadal has never defended a title on a hard court?

Sir Fred Perry - agreed - Lendl overachieved in reaching a few of his earliest Major finals - losing to Borg in 5 sets on clay? Hardly a negative....that he reached it and took him to 5 was amazing at the time. Probably a lot on here aren't that old so didn't watch/weren't following at the time....

His hard court run at US Open, again, over achieving in the earlier 80's...see it as a positive...credit due...


I think the more fully rounded a player's career is, the more that one tends to look for those "missing parts." Sampras at the French - think it was down to belief in a large part. Similar to Lendl at Wimbledon - he'd make volleys that astounded at French and US Opens - but when it came to crunch at Wimbledon...??

Nadal not defending a hard court title, or grass title - so what? He's won more hard court TMS titles, than Becker, Courier, Safin, Roddick have won on ALL surfaces. In and of itself, it's a nothing issue - only when put to the superlatives of everything else he's achieved, is it something to bring up.

Djokovic - 7 Majors, and you'd think he'll win a few more, but who knows? If he never wins the French, it' sonly "glaring" because of what he's done at the other Majors. Evert - 7 times the runner up at Wimbledon - awful, right? Hardly...etc.,

The Special Juan - there is never a grammatically correct time to use "off of" (even accepting the typo), it's simply off.....he jumped off the bridge, he got off the plane, he's never defended a title off clay - an ubiquitous error. Sorry but a long term pet peeve! LOL! Little "diversion" away from tennis theme...as a laugh only...

sirfredperry wrote:
 Yes, you could say that Rafa could, or should, have had more weeks at number one. But it's not as if there's a lot of duffers around at the top, and 141 weeks at the top aint bad.

I would disagree with the first part of that. To say he should have had more weeks at No.1 implies a certain objective manner in which the rankings are put together. Which we know they are not. When he was not at No.1, someone else more deserved was (has anyone other than Federer or Djokovic been at No.1 with Nadal at No.2 - I would say no). So really IMHO, he's had the amount of No.1 he should have had..which is the amount he's got.

To say he have could have, well everyone could have. But they didn't. Again because someone else was consistenly better over any 12 month rolling period. It is what it is.

However, I agree, 141 weeks at No.1 is not to be sniffed at! There are not that many with more. It does however sit with the notion that Rafa always prefers being the hunter as oppose to the hunted when you compare his week at No.1 and weeks at No.2. It would suggest his results drop when he reaches No.1. for some reason. That too might be an interesting stat for Nadal. His percentage wins and tournaments wins when he was No.1 and not at No.1. My guess is you would see a big drop off.

Muray's lack of clay prowess is at odds with his retrieval game. Sampras you wonder if he could be bothered with RG. He nailed his colours to the mast quite quickly with what he considered important.

Novak on the other hand seems to have it all. Can beat Nadal on clay, beaten Roger on grass, beaten Roger indoor, mentally and physically strong, almost won all the masters titles and yet....there still seems to be something missing. He'll end up with more weeks at No.1 than Rafa you would suspect as well. Perhaps he's not held in quite the same esteem because his biggest slam success has been at the Australian? Which, in terms of heritage, doesn't quite have the same pull as Wimbledon, RG or US? And Roger and Rafa cast such a large shadow? Jack of all trades, master of none. I don't know.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have an all round game and have proved they can win on all surfaces and in all conditions. But to concentrate on their weaknesses...

Federer's big weakness is 10-23 without that he would have won a lot more trophies. The weak point in his game is a backhand that can wilt when attacked.

Nadal's big weakness is injury without that he would have won a lot more trophies. The weak point in his game is he lacks a killer serve.

Djokovic's big weakness is both Nadal and Federer without them he would have won a lot more trophies. The weak point in his game is his net play... particularly the overhead.

Federer's weak point statistically speaking is as Murdoch says. The h2h with one player is noteworthy, but given he's virtually a designed anti-Fed (left hand, high bounce) and it's clay dominated it doesn't matter much to me.

Nadals weak point is again as Mudoch says the few weeks at #1, plus never defending a title off clay. It goes to the reality of the off-clay status. As was seen on the years with a Slam title, Rafa is really clay, plus quite a bit but not GOAT material away from clay.

Novak's weak point to me is less clear. I give him huge credit for his h2hs with Federer and Nadal, he's been the only player to make Rafa look beatable on clay and he looks great against Federer on hard. I actually think he has less of a blot, though perhaps other than the Annus Mirabillis, he rarely looks head and shoulders above his contemporaries.

Andy isn't really in the same category as these guys. Super player, but hardly so eone you go controversial pointing out deficiencies.

Pete is obviously not even making the RG final.

Lendl, as you say.

Let's add:

Borg - fled the scene as a McEnroe got on top of him?

Connors - just too nice a guy really?

I'll put forward two things about Sampras that severely affected his clay progress (he won Rome don't forget so could play on the stuff).

1. Thalassemia - cost him the RG96 title.
2. 85sqin racquet & strung at 80lbs with gut.

sirfredperry wrote: Fed has been good enough to avoid many five-setters

I've heard this theory before but I don't think it's correct.

Number of 5 set matches / number of slam matches / % of matches that are 5 sets
Federer: 41 / 318 / 12.9%
Nadal: 21 / 212 / 9.9%
Djokovic: 30 / 207 / 14.5%

There will be some small distortion in these stats as the number of 5 setters would include any outside of slams too.

But as a general trend, Federer is not playing signicantly fewer 5 set matches than his contemporary rivals.

yloponom68 wrote:
The Special Juan - there is never a grammatically correct time to use "off of" (even accepting the typo), it's simply off.....he jumped off the bridge, he got off the plane, he's never defended a title off clay - an ubiquitous error. Sorry but a long term pet peeve! LOL! Little "diversion" away from tennis theme...as a laugh only...

Noted It's technology these days - my ability to construct proper sentences is going. I've just read a blog post on it which was very interesting. Mark Twain used it in Huck Finn but these days it's considered "illiterate". That's a smack in the face.

For Sampras, I actually consider this stat to be a 'weakness':

Slams won: 14
Masters won: 11

He was so obviously focused on slams and his results there are Hall of Fame. But I have more respect for the achievements of Federer and Nadal who achieved similar slam totals whilst also making an effort to win Masters level titles too.

Had Sampras fully exerted himself at Masters level, maybe the slam tally would be lower.

This is part of the reason, I do value Masters record is assessing greatness (although slams are, of course, the main currency).

I think underneath it all Federer has never had the mental power of others. He's just so damn brilliant that he blows people around but deep down I think he has a fear. He said once, and I'll misquote here but it's close enough; "I do wake up sometimes and worry whether I can actually hit my shots, whether I'll turn up one day and not have them".

I think now and then, deep in a 5th, that worry resurfaces and that explains the stat. He's good enough to get through it many times but in the sum of the parts thing, I think Federer's skill and athleticism is a bigger number before you add mental fortitude, at least at the toppiest level he resides.

You also see it in ordinary matches. Sometimes he just kills guys, then slips up, gets all twitchy and goes rubbish. Think he lost to Benneteau once after first turning in outrageous exhibition stuff, then when he missed a few it was like he lost faith. I reckon something like that did him against JMDP in 2009.

To me this only makes me love his play the more. After all, I'm switched on by the virtuosity, grinders I can find anywhere.

BB, interesting thought on Federer.

My view is that it is more of a physical issue.

Concession was made to him with regard to military service back in 04, I believe due to an issue with his back. This may have course been bunkum and Switzerland just wanted to help one of its favourite sons, but given the more recent travails with his back, I find it believable that there is a weakness there. It's quite possible that it impairs performance as a match enters its 4th or 5th hour.

He's also never struck me as having supreme physical endurance in the way that Nadal, Djokovic and Ferrer have. Whereas most of his gifts are at levels that make them outliers in the spectrum, his endurance seems much closer to the mean.

Strangely though, I see that as part of his appeal. Nadal and Djokovic are natural born sportsmen who I can imagine being successful in a number of sports. Federer has a kind of 'everyman' quality to him. He has the look of a normal guy who just happens to have been blessed with an extraordinary gift for tennis. Watching him play is not simply seeing a great athlete being great at sport, it's seeing talent find its natural home.

I'm incorporating that last paragraph into my personal belief system.

Johnyjeep wrote:It does however sit with the notion that Rafa always prefers being the hunter as oppose to the hunted when you compare his week at No.1 and weeks at No.2. It would suggest his results drop when he reaches No.1. for some reason. That too might be an interesting stat for Nadal. His percentage wins and tournaments wins when he was No.1 and not at No.1. My guess is you would see a big drop off.

If I've worked this out correctly:

- since (and including) RG05, he has entered 33 slams

- he entered 11 slams as world #1 and won 4 of them (36%).

- he entered 22 slams as lower than #1 and won 10 of them (45%).

When you think about it you're bound to win more as you approach being #1 than when you approach not being it.

bogbrush wrote:When you think about it you're bound to win more as you approach being #1 than when you approach not being it.

True. But you might also expect a period at the summit i.e. neither on the way up nor way down, in which slams are won. Fed's 04-07 being a strong example if this. Sampras too, achieved most of his slams as #1, I believe.

Don't agree on Fed's endurance being close to the mean. No way.
Doesn't everyone remember him toe to toe with Nadal at Rome 06 in the heat/sun for well over 5 hours? There was no loss of form. The guy hardly ever used to sweat. And it's well documented the intense physical conditioning he adopted from 2000 onwards with his physical coach Paganini.

The issue is mental. He used to panic in his youth and got sports psychology for it. He still has a tendency to do that now, especially when it gets to 5 sets. We've all seen him over hit and get tight on shots at times...he has a tendency to over press when it gets tight. This area sun this innate talent vs someone like Nadal who is a mental fortress by and large. Federer's talent meant he could win most matches without having to think too much, and often he simply led from the front/start and kept going until the finishing line was reached. But then talent can be measured in different ways...ease of playing, taking the ball early, staying calm under extreme pressure, ability to focus point in, point out...etc.

lydian wrote:I'll put forward two things about Sampras that severely affected his clay progress (he won Rome don't forget so could play on the stuff).

1. Thalassemia - cost him the RG96 title.
2. 85sqin racquet & strung at 80lbs with gut.

He did won Rome however the draw fell apart for him. See more here http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A59554948

Sampras never got close to winning RG except for maybe that one year. It was too slow to him and he had a fast court game.

I do agree with your last comment though Lydian, and I think you expressed that well. Federer is mentally strong for me, but not quite at the level of Nadal and Djokovic.

I think lydian is saying something similar to myself about Federer, and Murdochs last paragraph that I liked so much.

The only thing is I'm not a fan of expressing everything as 'talent', or the word loses meaning. I think when Rafa says Federer has more talent than them all I think he means that too. I respect the will to win, to train, to stick to a plan and so on, but in my head vocabulary talent means something that let's you do surprising things based on thinking or hand skills that are just odd.

The example that always comes to mind is Judy Murray being unable to avoid clapping when Hawkeye confirmed Federer hit that half volley deep ball onto her sons baseline for a winner during the loooong game in set 3, W '12. You know the one, it was just one of those 'oh ok, he did that thing again' moments.

I also thought your comments were well put BB.

On another note, I was just reading the 606 article I wrote in 2009 which I posted above and there is a comment from Lydian that says it was a "pointless article". So now that I think of it there may not be much mileage in trying to get Lydian to read it again.

To my mind, the highest levels of talent in sports seem be distinct from the body in which it resides.

Federer, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Maradona, Michael Jordan, Usain Bolt, Michael Johnson all have/had the appearance of not so much doing something amazing as channeling it. It's as if they are the conduit through which a separate force is flowing.

I get the sensation when I watch them that what I'm seeing is greater than the total produced by the muscles, energy and movement. There's an extra undefinable element in there.

Nadal is a true legend of the game and clearly massively talented. But it's not quite the same thing as the sportsmen above.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:It does however sit with the notion that Rafa always prefers being the hunter as oppose to the hunted when you compare his week at No.1 and weeks at No.2. It would suggest his results drop when he reaches No.1. for some reason. That too might be an interesting stat for Nadal. His percentage wins and tournaments wins when he was No.1 and not at No.1. My guess is you would see a big drop off.

If I've worked this out correctly:

- since (and including) RG05, he has entered 33 slams

- he entered 11 slams as world #1 and won 4 of them (36%).

- he entered 22 slams as lower than #1 and won 10 of them (45%).

Ah I see, tbh that doesn't drop off as much as I thought. Yes, I see what you and Bogbrush are saying about winning more to get to Number.1 but, if you keep on winning at the same rate, you stay at Number 1. Something I think Nadal struggles with mentally.

Couldn't agree more HMM with your post at 8.07pm. I'll also add another name to that list who flys under the radar. Jonathan Edwards. His triple jump WR is ridiculous compared to what athletes do now and coming up to 20 years old now. He's not exactly 'cool' or the big name but hey. His jumping was effortless. Michael Johnson remains my favorite athlete though.

Regarding Murdochs brilliant "channeling" post, dare I mention Phil "The Power" Taylor? The man the late, great, Sid Waddell claimed was one of the four most important athletes of his lifetime (the others being Jesse Owens, Muhammed Ali and Roger Federer).


No, thought not. I'll get me coat.

bogbrush wrote:Regarding Murdochs brilliant "channeling" post, dare I mention Phil "The Power" Taylor? The man the late, great, Sid Waddell claimed was one of the four most important athletes of his lifetime (the others being Jesse Owens, Muhammed Ali and Roger Federer).


No, thought not. I'll get me coat.

I've mentioned Phil a few times here. He's the only person who is unquestionably the best ever in his sport. He beat the 80s lot, he beat the 90s lot, he owned the 00s lot and he's taking on the 10s lot. He might be a bit of a scumbag but is unquestionably one of the greatest sportsmen in history if you consider darts a sport (which I do).

JJ, I used to love watching Michael Johnson. So unorthodox in his technique but so effective. I used to think his 200m record was one of the most impressive on the books but then Bolt went and broke it!

The Edwards record is incredible and, as you say, put in context by how far people are away from it now.

That Mike Powell long jump record is still standing too! That was more of a one-off though rather than representing Powell's typical standard.

BB - that quote is brilliant! Ridiculous... but brilliant. What a legend Sid Waddell was.

Problem with Phil Taylor is he's arguably the most unlikeable person you could ever hope to come across!! Shouldn't detract from his standing, just does though for me. I love darts, even play a little, but I struggle to quantify it in my head as a sport. Sorry.

Yes, I remember watching Powell and Lewis going toe to toe in Tokyo I think it was at the worlds. Great contest. I remember thinking where has this Powell chap come from!! Both just kept leaping longer and overtaking each other. Fantastic.

Couldn't agree more about Johnson!! I used to get so excited and looked forward to watching him run.

As for Bolt breaking MJ 200m record, this biggest compliment to MJ was hard Bolt ran that 200m race to break his record. He was grimacing and forcing it so hard...and how many times have we ever seen him do that!!!

Then he beat it again by over a tenth of a second a year later in Berlin!

Good article HMM.   

For me the weakness are as follows

1]Federer, a weak h2h vs Nadal

2]Nadal , No year end No.1 defense , NO WTF, No Hard court slam Defense

3]Djoko , No of slams won when compared to no. of finals reached.

4]Sampras , No. of Masters won, Lack of any meaningful achievement in Clay let alone FO.

Murray is a very good player but don't make a cut in this thread yet, minimum criteria should be at least 15 Masters or 5 Slams.

HM Murdoch wrote:BB, interesting thought on Federer.

My view is that it is more of a physical issue.

Concession was made to him with regard to military service back in 04, I believe due to an issue with his back. This may have course been bunkum and Switzerland just wanted to help one of its favourite sons, but given the more recent travails with his back, I find it believable that there is a weakness there. It's quite possible that it impairs performance as a match enters its 4th or 5th hour.

He's also never struck me as having supreme physical endurance in the way that Nadal, Djokovic and Ferrer have. Whereas most of his gifts are at levels that make them outliers in the spectrum, his endurance seems much closer to the mean.

Strangely though, I see that as part of his appeal. Nadal and Djokovic are natural born sportsmen who I can imagine being successful in a number of sports. Federer has a kind of 'everyman' quality to him. He has the look of a normal guy who just happens to have been blessed with an extraordinary gift for tennis. Watching him play is not simply seeing a great athlete being great at sport, it's seeing talent find its natural home.

It's well-established that he has had to manage a back problem over many years and it certainly affected his 2013 season. Of course he was already way past his prime then, and all sorts of physical issues become more of a factor into your thirties.

But of all possible theories for the 5 set match stats, the question of physical endurance just doesn't come into the equation where Federer is concerned and I'm genuinely amazed to see you raise it HMM. You might even be the first to ever do so .....! He doesn't jump & down on the baseline like a prize-fighter just before a big match gets underway, we'll never see any shirts ripped for as long as he plays the game, but he was always able to stay with anyone when it comes to lasting the distance. That epic Rome clash mentioned by lydian is the ultimate example, and IIRC he even held match match points there in the decider. A series of five setters in close succession would obviously be far more of a challenge these days but there are many much younger guys who would find it just as tough, and some maybe more so.  We hear that the collection of young guns who are invited to hit with him at his Dubai training camp wilt under the draining heat long before he does.

No.....I think the only explanation is that at various times there have been deep-seated mental gremlins at work - as there are on occasion with all the top guys. And it would be fair to say that his own particular career blot has been closing out many of those 5 setters (against 'lesser' opposition) that perhaps should never have gone the distance in the first place.

Looks like I've been outvoted on the endurance issue then!

I suppose the Olympic match v DelPo and the W09 match v Roddick undermine my case further.

I think my position may have been slightly misunderstood though. I don't consider his endurance to be poor, just much closer to the average than the rest of his game. He compares well against most players but is a clear level behind Rafa and Novak in that respect.

Mental gremlins is a fair theory though, I'm happy enough to accept it and not dig my feet in about endurance problems.

It is quite interesting when you look at those facts.

I think in case when you look at Federer, I don't think it is so much a fitness issue behind his weak 5 set record. I agree with lydian in terms of his mental fragility. I won't say he is mentally weak, because you don't win the titles and set the records he has by being a mentally weak individual. Roger for me plays the game on instinct and also plays within the moment. His shot arsenal is much more varied and in depth compared with the competition and he can really play without having to over-think or over-analyse the match. However, I believe when he does blink he hands the opponent the incentive. I would say most of his losses have occured through his opponent blunting his game, much rather than the opponent going all out to match him stroke for stroke. I think that says more about his game than anything else.

In terms of Nadal. Yes the number 1 ranking has not been heavily associated with him despite his record. It can't be denied that his lack of surface adaption early in his career and to a case still some of it lingers today is that he can't defend a title off the red stuff. Take Grass. More in recent time he has been vulnerable to streaky players. That use to be the case on HC, but for me it is more obvious on the green stuff. Yes I will concede that injuries have also played a part in being able to sustain the number 1 ranking long term, but not sure I will entirely put that down to bad luck much rather than his style which has to be taxing on the body.

Djokovic mentally strong? Hmmmmm. I can only say that I have only witnessed this in 2011 and the AO 2012 and 2013. His Slam Final record is not hardly surprising given the mental defiencies he has shown in the past and in more recent years.

Andy Murray and Clay. If Andy had followed the route of his early playing style, I could understand the Clay hoodoo. However, Andy adapted his game to match the roadrunners and even improved his BH as a major weapon. I look at Ferrer and think what weapons does he possess more than Murray? It is simply that Andy is not a great mover on Clay. Doesn't slide around and looks quite clunky. Grass and HC no problem, those surfaces don't require a flexible mover like Clay does. Andy doesn't have heavy groundstrokes, so to hide his movement weakness on Clay you need bigger weapons and Andy doesn't have this in buckets like many around him do.

As for Sampras and his RG record. His game for me was too compact to really make a dent on the 5 set format on the red stuff. The freebies he would normally get on HC and Grass don't necessarily translate to Clay and similar to Murray you need something else in the locker to get you over that line. If he had a Babolat in 90's, who knows how many Clay titles he could've won

Lendl. Well he was mentally fragile. In a way like Goran. Once one thing in match went against him, that was it. The tide would completely turn. He did toughen up once he won a Slam, but he was always more likely to succumb to mental pressure. I think that elusive Wimbledon title could be put down that in some part.

Lastly in terms of the Phil Taylor praise. Without a doubt the greatest player to have played the game. However I will impart something the late Sid Waddell said and that was Raymond Van Barneveld was the most natural thrower of a dart he had ever seen. I find that quite interesting.

A surprising comment I've just read from Peter Fleming. In response to the question:

By stats and titles etc, who is the greatest of all time? Also, who would you say is the greatest ever in terms of quality of play?

Fleming replied:
In terms of quality of play, it might be Djokovic. He has played the best tennis over the last year or so in a truly great era but it could be Rafa Nadal or Roger Federer and you’re nit-picking if you pick one over the other. In terms of stats, you’d probably have to say Rod Laver who won two career Grand Slams and 19 Majors in total, but it is very hard to compare guys in different eras.

I'm a big fan of Djokovic but best quality of play ever?!

Was Fleming doing that little smile as he said it?

Sometimes on TV I think he's slightly mellow on something.

bogbrush wrote:Was Fleming doing that little smile as he said it?

Sometimes on TV I think he's slightly mellow on something.

I think he might actually have been thinking of someone else because he also said:

"I love watching Djokovic because he is a cerebral player, perhaps more cerebral than any other, and he very rarely makes a mental mistake."

I'm not sure who he has been watching but it doesn't sound like Novak!

HM Murdoch wrote:Looks like I've been outvoted on the endurance issue then!

I suppose the Olympic match v DelPo and the W09 match v Roddick undermine my case further.

I think my position may have been slightly misunderstood though. I don't consider his endurance to be poor, just much closer to the average than the rest of his game. He compares well against most players but is a clear level behind Rafa and Novak in that respect.

Mental gremlins is a fair theory though, I'm happy enough to accept it and not dig my feet in about endurance problems.

I'd actually agree with you, HM. Admittedly both physical and mental come into the equation, especially when compared with a titan of both like Nadal. Lydian makes a good point but look at how early in Federer's career that Rome match was - 2005. We all know that he seemed to start slacking off on the physical work after the mono got hold of him, and he's not really been the same player - physically - since. Still way above the norm for a tennis player, and his ease of play helps that, but when he's pushed to the very highest peak of his powers for a sustained period, he wilts.

See: US Open 2009 (crashed and burned in 5th set), AO 2009 (crashed and burned in 5th set). How much of that is mental, I'm not sure...but when your serve falls to bits as badly as it did for Fed in that latter final, I'm inclined to think that physicality fits in there somewhere. Going off pure endurance, Nadal should've collapsed a long time before Federer did in that final, given the previous semis.

Both are factors though, and I'd still err more towards mental than physical overall. Great thread

I actually think there is an argument that Djokovic has played the best tennis ever, I really do. In 2011. In my view Nadal was just as good in 2011 as 2008 or 2010. Djokovic just got better. I also believe that Federer 2011 was very close in quality to any other Federer year (something that was already discussed to death with view being quite split). Actually think Federer 2011 would have made year end no 1 in 2014 by the way. Djokovic and Rafa have dipped a little.

I think Djokovic just raised the bar in 2011 and in the US Open final against Rafa...who else in history could have got into that match against him and started as favourite? No-one, in my view. Of course, Djokovic is the guy for the modern slow surfaces. He might not have won 2011 US Open if it had been played at 2006 speed, or 1990s speed, that is another story.

I actually think tennis was just getting better and better until 2011/2012 and since then it has flattened off or even fallen back a notch. Since that US Open match in 2011, I don't think there has been a match that surpassed it in quality, and I'm not sure there was one before.

Of course by quality I don't mean entertainment or flair but guts and sheer effectiveness not to lose a match. And by best ever...rackets and fitness training and other things are always improving..in some ways best ever in an absolute sense means the same as best now or best in last 5-10 years.

And so the fact that Djokovic could beat Pancho Gonzales or Ken Rosewall if he travelled back in time to play them does not make him "greater". In fact, he is clearly far less great than those two, for example.

I think the peak year so far in tennis was either 2011 or 2012.

The argument for 2011 being Nadal and Djokovic both at their best. In 2012 Federer did better and Murray improved, but Nadal and Djokovic dipped.

I'll say again though...today's players are standing on the shoulders of the giants that went before them. In a sense they are better but not greater.

Henman Bill wrote:And so the fact that Djokovic could beat Pancho Gonzales or Ken Rosewall if he travelled back in time to play them does not make him "greater". In fact, he is clearly far less great than those two, for example.

I do not recall Oxygen tents, surgeries for respiratory issues, cortisone injections, medical trainers on the court when Pancho, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe played. There were no chairs to sit on. Budge held six slams (yes the draws were different). These players played on polished wood. No one in the 2000-2015 window has a chance against these guys given era-appropriate tools (so much for what-if theories).

@HB... the envelope will always get pushed and to a large extent technology helps a lot. From Bannister to Bolt, we are witness to it.

Love this article, would just like to chime in on the conversation on Federer's 5th set record I'm terms of fitness vs mental demons. I read a fascinating article not too long ago that said Federer's 5th set record somewhat proves his greatness. Now at first glance that seems crazy.

However, it goes on to say that of all the all time greats Federer has lost the most matches having won the most points. Now first thing you think is, 'well thats not a great thing as he throws matches away'. Well, yes this is true but it also shows he is often the better player whoever he plays, but with tennis's unique scoring system players are able to stay with Roger unlike in any other sport.

Imagine a football team being 3-0, chances are they will not come back. However, a tennis player could lose the 6-1 the first set but then affectively start from 0-0 again and have another chance.

There is also an argument that in tight moments Federer's vast arsenal is a slight hindrance, he has so many options on a big point he probably doesn't make his mind up in those few seconds. Whereas Nadal and Djokovic, they know what they are great at. Rafa will pull you out of court onto your backhand then slam into the open court, you know whats coming but you can't really stop him.

Probably why he has a poor record on break points too, to get to break point he just being Federer, playing on instinct and hitting shots naturally. Break point comes round he thinks "shall I run around, shall I chip and charge? 'Shall I slice low to his backhand to his double hander?"

The point is in the meatiest part of the match, Federer is outplaying his opponent a lot of the time, just when it gets in tight moments he is more likely to wilt and his opponent is able to stay with a player who is better than him more so than in most other sports. I think I am right in saying that in the AUS Open 09 final despite losing the final set 6-2, he actually won more points than Rafa! Incredible really.


Also, just to add another all time great, Agassi: Had quite a poor record in finals and lost some very bizarre wons early in his career. Did he also win a few Aussie Opens when it wasn't taken too seriously by the best players?

I think Agassi's wins in Australia were after the point the top players started to take it seriously. Indeed, he was probably the last great player not to initially take it seriously. I have a recollection that he didn't play it until he was a good few years into his career.

You've reached some serious depths there in trying to turn Federer's poor 5ths et / break point record in to a positive there, CAS!

Pretty sure Agassi didn't play Australia until 1995 - and he promptly won it that very year, beating Sampras in the final.

That said, by the mid nineties the Australian had taken its place alongside the other three Slams as a really momentous tournament, so no real bloth on Agassi's record, for me. Gone were the days when the likes of Kriek were triumphing there with the big boys missing. Take a look at who'd been winning in Australia over the few years previously; world number one Sampras in '94, world number one Courier in '93 and '92, Becker in '91 (became world number one off the back of that win, I believe), Lendl in '90 and '89.

Never really cared much for this so-called 'asterisk' when it comes to four of Djokovic's Slams coming down under, and don't consider half of Agassi's coming in Australia a stick to beat him with, either.

CAS, you make an insteresting point, but we can't really forget that mental strength is a big part in the game of tennis, especially because of this special scoring system. It runs alongside strategy/tactics too - or how one could decide to give away a point, game or set to catch their breath, for example.
Yes, the variety of the game he usually uses is wider than most (not saying others lack the variety, but that they would usually focus on one particular aspect of their game, like Nadal is known for) and he is praised for this. But it's part of his job to get through the big points.

I think that decider sets stats should be viewed next to tie breaker stats too, as both play or the minds... Anyone has these stats for the top players?

And to complete the set: why not add break points stats (for and against) and set/match points stats. I think we'd need all of that to start having a better idea of a player's mental strength (5 setters adding an idea of stamina).

For example, I'd expect Nadal to be amongst the best "breakers" but conversely having Federer above him for not being broken (less certain after 2013 though...)

I didn't say I agree with it, I am a believer that Federer does lose his head a little bit in tight moments. (Unless he makes a first serve).

I just liked the part where it explains that when there is no 'pressure' or the meaty part of the match, Federer is winning more points. So he is the better player but not when it matters.

Nadal is the opposite, I would say so many sets over the years he hasn't been the better player but somehow nicked the set right at the death. Its what makes him more of a 'champion' in my book, Federer is just better than everyone a lot of the time, but in tennis that doesn't make you the winner. That being said, I'm pretty sure Federer has a superb slam tiebreak record, at least he did up until last year which is a good stat, but is that because of his serve?

(have to be careful I dont get in a Federer vs Nadal debate)

CAS. Of the eight sets that Fed won against Rafa in the Wimbledon finals of 06,07 and 08, no fewer than six were won on tiebreaks. Rafa did win a tiebreak in the 06 final but that was the only one.

You're only critiquing Kriek because South Africa hasn't been waiting 150 years for our next slam winner, Curis

On top of that, Federer has been quite "good" at losing a match after having a match-point:
vs Haas - AO 2002
vs Safin - AO 2005 ("that" semi - with Hewitt waiting in final...)
vs Gasquet - MC 2005
vs Nadal - Rome 2006 (F)
vs Baghdatis - IW 2010
vs Berdych - Miami 2010
vs Djokovic - USO 2010 (SF)
vs Monfils - Paris 2010 (SF)
vs Djokovic - USO 2011 (SF)

Safin did a good job of chucking away match points himself in "that" semi.

Indeed!
And I found more complete stats about the match points:

MATCH POINTS SAVED (and match won) AND SQUANDERED

ROGER FEDERER
Match Points saved:

2011 - F. Lopez 1 (Madrid RD of 32).
2006 - O. Rochus 4 (Halle QF), Roddick 3 (Tennis Masters Cup RR).
2005 - Ferrero 2 (Dubai RD of 16).
2003 - Scott Draper 7 (Cincinnati RD of 64), Martin Verkerk 4 (Paris RD 16), Agassi 2 (TMC RR).
2001 - Massu 3 (Vienna RD of 32), Johansson 1 (Miami RD of 16).
2000 - Ljubicic 2 (Marseille QF), Hewitt 1 (Basel R16).
1999 - Guillaume Raoux 2 (Rotterdam RD 32).

Total 12 Matches, 32 Match Points.

Match Points lost:

2000 - Henmen 2 (Vienna SF).
2001 - Rafter 1 (Halle QF).
2002 - Haas 1 (Australian Open RD of 16).
2003 - Albert Costa 3 (Miami QF).
2005 - Safin 1 (Australian Open 2005), Gasquet 3 (Monte Carlo QF).
2006 - Nadal 2 (Rome 2006).
2010 - Baghdatis 3 (IndianWells RD of 32), Berdych 1 (Miami RD of 16), Djokovic 2 (US Open SF), Monfils 5 (Paris SF).
2011 - Djokovic 2 (US Open SF).
2013 - Berdych 3 (Dubai SF).

Total 13 Matches, 29 Match Points.


NOVAK DJOKOVIC
Match Points saved:

2012: Tsonga 4 (RG QF), Murray 5 (Shanghai Final)
2011: Federer 2 (US Open SF), Berdych 1 (London RR)
2010: Kohlschreiber 3 (IndianWells RD of 32), Federer 2 (US Open SF)
2009: Serra 5 (Halle RD of 16), Stepanek 3 (Basel RD of 16)
2007: Chela 2 (Vienna QF), Youzhny 3 (Rotterdam SF)
2005: Garcia-Lopez 3 (Wimbledon 2nd RD)

Total 11 Matches, 33 Match Points

Match Points lost:

2009: Nadal 3 (Madrid SF)
2007: Youzhny 3 (Rotterdam SF)



RAFAEL NADAL
Match Poinsts saved:

2010 - Troicki 2(Tokyo SF), Benneteau 1(Cincinnati RD of 16)
2009 - Nalbandian 5(IndianWells RD of 16), Almagro 5(Paris RD of 32), Djokovic 3(Madrid SF)
2008 - Moya 4(Chennai SF)
2006 - Federer 2(Rome Final), O. Rochus 1(Marseille RD of 32)
2005 - Youzhny 1(Australian Open RD of 64)

Total 9 Matches, 24 Match Points

Match Points lost:

2010 - Davydenko 2(Doha Final)
2005 - Berdych 3(Cincinnati RD of 64)
2004 - Ferrer 3(Stuttgart QF), Agustin Calleri 2(IndianWells RD of 32)
2003 - Nicolas Lapentti 5(Bastad QF)

Total 5 Matches, 15 Matches



ANDY MURRAY
Match Points saved:

2006 - Mello 5(New Port RD of 32)
2007 - Youzhny 1(St. Petersburg SF), Haas 2(IndianWells QF), Mathieu 2(Miami RD of 16)
2014 - Isner 2?(Cinci R16)

Total 4 Matches, 12 Match Points

Match Points lost:

2012 - Djokovic 5(Shanghai Final), Raonic 2(Tokyo SF), Janowicz 1(paris)
2010 - Querrey 1(Los Angeles Final)
2008 - Ancic 2(Miami RD of 64)

Total 6 Matches, 11 Match Points