PDA

View Full Version : Career-to-Date Comparisons


CocaCola
08-05-2009, 01:57 PM
Djokovic is currently 22 yrs, 2 months, 1 week. Murray is 1 week older.

Djokovic: 13 Titles including 1 Slam (AO), 1 TMC and 4 Masters (Miami, Canada, Indian Wells, Rome).
Murray: 12 Titles including 0 Slam, 0 TMC and 3 Masters (Cincinnati, Madrid, Miami).
Federer at same age: 10 titles including 1 Slam (Wimbledon) and 1 Masters (Hamburg).
Nadal at same age: 31 titles including 5 Slams (4 RG, 1 Wimbledon), 0 TMC and 12 Masters (4 Monte Carlo, 3 Rome, 2 Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells, Hamburg)
Borg at same age: 36 titles including 6 Slams (3 RG, 3 Wimbledon, and … he chose to skip AO most times because it was not a great event in those days), 0 TMC (there were no Masters in those days)



Very interesting!Never looked it that way.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 01:59 PM
Djokovic is currently 22 yrs, 2 months, 1 week. Murray is 1 week older.

Djokovic: 13 Titles including 1 Slam (AO), 1 TMC and 4 Masters (Miami, Canada, Indian Wells, Rome).
Murray: 12 Titles including 0 Slam, 0 TMC and 3 Masters (Cincinnati, Madrid, Miami).
Federer at same age: 10 titles including 1 Slam (Wimbledon) and 1 Masters (Hamburg).
Nadal at same age: 31 titles including 5 Slams (4 RG, 1 Wimbledon), 0 TMC and 12 Masters (4 Monte Carlo, 3 Rome, 2 Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells, Hamburg)
Borg at same age: 36 titles including 6 Slams (3 RG, 3 Wimbledon, and … he chose to skip AO most times because it was not a great event in those days), 0 TMC (there were no Masters in those days)



Very interesting!Never looked it that way.

Nadal and Borg has had very similar careers thus far, although i dont think Nadal will end up with as many as 11 GS and 62 grand prix (atp-tour-titles)

tennisfan25
08-05-2009, 01:59 PM
very interesting indeed. doesn't mean much as its unlikely a player will ever go on a string of major wins much like federer has done in the past few years

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 01:59 PM
Djokovic is currently 22 yrs, 2 months, 1 week. Murray is 1 week older.

Djokovic: 13 Titles including 1 Slam (AO), 1 TMC and 4 Masters (Miami, Canada, Indian Wells, Rome).
Murray: 12 Titles including 0 Slam, 0 TMC and 3 Masters (Cincinnati, Madrid, Miami).
Federer at same age: 10 titles including 1 Slam (Wimbledon) and 1 Masters (Hamburg).
Nadal at same age: 31 titles including 5 Slams (4 RG, 1 Wimbledon), 0 TMC and 12 Masters (4 Monte Carlo, 3 Rome, 2 Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells, Hamburg)
Borg at same age: 36 titles including 6 Slams (3 RG, 3 Wimbledon, and … he chose to skip AO most times because it was not a great event in those days), 0 TMC (there were no Masters in those days)



Very interesting!Never looked it that way.

Good thread by the way

jamesblakefan#1
08-05-2009, 02:01 PM
Lleyton Hewitt at 22 y.o., 2 months: 19 titles, 2 slams, 2 YEC, and 2 MS titles.

And 2 EOY #1's.

FlamEnemY
08-05-2009, 02:02 PM
And some people call Djokovic and Murray clowns... :)

Fairly impressive. Djokovic and Murray obviously aren't of the Fed-Borg-Nadal calibre, but they are doing fine job. Esp. Djokovic, despite his lack of form recently.
I still don't know of Murray's true potential, he may be a late bloomer like Federer, to a lesser degree...

CocaCola
08-05-2009, 02:08 PM
Good thread by the way

Thanks, I agree with you about Nadal, but just imagine if he maybe hasn't peaked yet?

timnz
08-05-2009, 02:12 PM
Borg at same age: 36 titles including 6 Slams (3 RG, 3 Wimbledon, and … he chose to skip AO most times because it was not a great event in those days), 0 TMC (there were no Masters in those days).

It would be interesting to work out how many Masters Equivalent tournaments Borg had. For instance the WCT finals was surely a Masters Level Equivalent.

drwood
08-05-2009, 02:13 PM
At 22 years, 2 months:

Roddick: 15 titles, 1 GS, 1 GS RUP, 1 year-end world #1, 0 year-end championships, 3 Masters titles. Career-high ranking = 1
Sampras: 19 titles, 3 GS, 1 GS RUP, 0 year-end world #1, 1 year-end championship, 2 Masters titles. Career-high ranking = 1

compared with:

Djokovic: 13 titles, 1 Slam, 1 GS RUP, 0 year-end #1, 1 year-end championship, 4 Masters titles. Career-high ranking = 3
Murray: 12 titles, 0 Slams, 1 GS RUP, 0 year-end #1, 0 year-end championshps, 3 Masters. Career-high ranking = 3

Djoker and Murray are impressive, but not more impressive than Roddick

mattp420
08-05-2009, 02:18 PM
Lleyton Hewitt at 22 y.o., 2 months: 19 titles, 2 slams, 2 YEC, and 2 MS titles.

And 2 EOY #1's.

Add to that 75 weeks straight at #1

Lotto
08-05-2009, 02:38 PM
Guys, I dont think its wise to compare peoples careers at a certain age, I think a persons career should be judged when they have their racquets hung up. Some are early bloomers ala Rafa and Borg and some are late ala Federer, its incomparable like.

sh@de
08-05-2009, 07:15 PM
Wow, very interesting stats. Shows how incredible Nadal has been for his age.

stanfordtennis alum
08-05-2009, 07:19 PM
great stats.. pretty interesting stuff

Tobias Fünke
08-05-2009, 07:24 PM
It would be interesting to work out how many Masters Equivalent tournaments Borg had. For instance the WCT finals was surely a Masters Level Equivalent.

Good point. The WCT finals and Italian Open were worth more in terms of prestige than today's Masters Series tournaments and were more highly regarded than the Australian Open. The year end Masters was probably the equivalent of a 4th grand slam tournament in those days which makes comparisons between eras difficult.

asafi2
08-05-2009, 07:49 PM
Before the age of 19 Becker already won 2 Slams, and at 17 Chang won 1 Slam.

Age is meaningless when comparing people because as you can see some are early bloomers and some are late bloomers. I think it is more reasonable to compare the years they've been a pro.

ChanceEncounter
08-05-2009, 09:03 PM
Before the age of 19 Becker already won 2 Slams, and at 17 Chang won 1 Slam.

Age is meaningless when comparing people because as you can see some are early bloomers and some are late bloomers. I think it is more reasonable to compare the years they've been a pro.
Still doesn't change that people have different learning/adjustment curves. Some people hit the ground running, other people need to wait until it all clicks. The only worthwhile comparison is at the end of their careers.

Mansewerz
08-05-2009, 09:17 PM
Before the age of 19 Becker already won 2 Slams, and at 17 Chang won 1 Slam.

Age is meaningless when comparing people because as you can see some are early bloomers and some are late bloomers. I think it is more reasonable to compare the years they've been a pro.

I did that, but *********s have no reading comprehension.

goyeji
08-05-2009, 09:22 PM
Wow nice stats there CocaCola - great thread! Really goes to show you what separates Nadal and Djokovic from the rest of today's field!

GameSampras
08-05-2009, 09:33 PM
Some guys burn out early, some perservere and develop great careers in later stages.. It all depends on the player.

jamesblakefan#1
08-05-2009, 10:10 PM
Wow nice stats there CocaCola - great thread! Really goes to show you what separates Nadal and Djokovic from the rest of today's field!

8 slams, my guess. :D

goyeji
08-05-2009, 10:22 PM
8 slams, my guess. :D

I guess you either didn't read CocaCola's post or didn't understand it. Let's highlight the relevant title counts for you, shall we. You can do the math.

Djokovic is currently 22 yrs, 2 months, 1 week. Murray is 1 week older.

Djokovic: 13 Titles including 1 Slam (AO), 1 TMC and 4 Masters (Miami, Canada, Indian Wells, Rome).
Murray: 12 Titles including 0 Slam, 0 TMC and 3 Masters (Cincinnati, Madrid, Miami).
Federer at same age: 10 titles including 1 Slam (Wimbledon) and 1 Masters (Hamburg).
Nadal at same age: 31 titles including 5 Slams (4 RG, 1 Wimbledon), 0 TMC and 12 Masters (4 Monte Carlo, 3 Rome, 2 Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells, Hamburg)
Borg at same age: 36 titles including 6 Slams (3 RG, 3 Wimbledon, and … he chose to skip AO most times because it was not a great event in those days), 0 TMC (there were no Masters in those days)



Very interesting!Never looked it that way.

CountryHillbilly
08-05-2009, 10:35 PM
Rafa, Murray and Djokovic had Federer in their way. That's something of an obstacle for most people.

nfor304
08-05-2009, 10:39 PM
And some people call Djokovic and Murray clowns... :)

Fairly impressive. Djokovic and Murray obviously aren't of the Fed-Borg-Nadal calibre, but they are doing fine job. Esp. Djokovic, despite his lack of form recently.
I still don't know of Murray's true potential, he may be a late bloomer like Federer, to a lesser degree...


This definitely highlights just how much of an overhyped clown murray is at this point....

goyeji
08-05-2009, 10:43 PM
Rafa, Murray and Djokovic had Federer in their way. That's something of an obstacle for most people.

He hasn't been much of an obstacle for those three though, has he. More like the other way around.:lol:

CountryHillbilly
08-05-2009, 10:45 PM
He hasn't been much of an obstacle for those three though, has he. More like the other way around.:lol:

Yeah, actually his H2H against them is 1-9 (that is, 1 win, 9 loses) since last USOpen.

Not that he cares right now :lol:

goyeji
08-05-2009, 10:47 PM
Yeah, actually his H2H against them is 1-9 (that is, 1 win, 9 loses) since last USOpen.

Not that he cares right now :lol:

Oh what a stat - thanks for that! I guess he is the 1-9 man in the Big Four.:lol:

jamesblakefan#1
08-05-2009, 11:01 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Roger's ok w/ the fact that 15 is still greater than 6+1+0. :lol:

goyeji
08-05-2009, 11:07 PM
I hope that Roger is keenly aware of the fact that 28 > 22, much unlike some of his fans.:lol:

FedFan_2009
08-06-2009, 12:13 AM
Who cares since turning 27 that he's lost 9/10 to his top rivals? He's allowed to have a bad stretch at his advanced age.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 01:08 AM
At 22 years, 2 months:

Roddick: 15 titles, 1 GS, 1 GS RUP, 1 year-end world #1, 0 year-end championships, 3 Masters titles. Career-high ranking = 1
Sampras: 19 titles, 3 GS, 1 GS RUP, 0 year-end world #1, 1 year-end championship, 2 Masters titles. Career-high ranking = 1

compared with:

Djokovic: 13 titles, 1 Slam, 1 GS RUP, 0 year-end #1, 1 year-end championship, 4 Masters titles. Career-high ranking = 3
Murray: 12 titles, 0 Slams, 1 GS RUP, 0 year-end #1, 0 year-end championshps, 3 Masters. Career-high ranking = 3

Djoker and Murray are impressive, but not more impressive than Roddick

your wrong, roddick won 20 titles overall, and had another grand slam runner up in wimbledon 05. he turned 23 in late 2005 and didn't win another tournament for a very long time

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 01:09 AM
oh, im sorry, i didn't realise that it was 22 yrs 2 months. Im sorry:)

FlamEnemY
08-06-2009, 01:44 AM
Roddick reached No1 in 2003 with the following perfomances in GS:
SF in AO
1R in FO
Sf in Wimbledon
Win in USO

and SF in Masters Cup

Compare that to Djokovic's 2008 resume
win in AO
SF in FO
2R in Wimbledon
SF in USO

and won MS Cup

I'd say Djokovic has an edge, yet this still wasn't enough to reach even No2.

callitout
08-06-2009, 01:51 AM
Roddick reached No1 in 2003 with the following perfomances in GS:
SF in AO
1R in FO
Sf in Wimbledon
Win in USO

and SF in Masters Cup

Compare that to Djokovic's 2008 resume
win in AO
SF in FO
2R in Wimbledon
SF in USO

and won MS Cup

I'd say Djokovic has an edge, yet this still wasn't enough to reach even No2.

Roddick also won Montreal and Cincy Masters back to back that summer including a win over Roger at Montreal.

jamesblakefan#1
08-06-2009, 01:53 AM
Roddick reached No1 in 2003 with the following perfomances in GS:
SF in AO
1R in FO
Sf in Wimbledon
Win in USO

and SF in Masters Cup

Compare that to Djokovic's 2008 resume
win in AO
SF in FO
2R in Wimbledon
SF in USO

and won MS Cup

I'd say Djokovic has an edge, yet this still wasn't enough to reach even No2.

Roddick finished #1 in 2003 w/ 4535 pts. Djokovic finished #3 in 2008 w/ 4315 pts. Judging from this, Roddick's 2003 was better than Djokovic's 2008. Also, Djokovic would have been #3 in 2003 as well, behind Roger Federer w/ 4375 pts.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 01:55 AM
i dont really think career date comparisions are neccessary because many people peak at different times.

FlamEnemY
08-06-2009, 02:16 AM
Roddick finished #1 in 2003 w/ 4535 pts. Djokovic finished #3 in 2008 w/ 4315 pts. Judging from this, Roddick's 2003 was better than Djokovic's 2008. Also, Djokovic would have been #3 in 2003 as well, behind Roger Federer w/ 4375 pts.

Alright, my bad. I didn't look in detail.

CocaCola
08-06-2009, 09:09 AM
Wow nice stats there CocaCola - great thread! Really goes to show you what separates Nadal and Djokovic from the rest of today's field!

Thanks, well they both must continue to prove themselves in a years to come.

goyeji
08-06-2009, 12:01 PM
Thanks, well they both must continue to prove themselves in a years to come.

Indeed, this is what all of us tennis fans have to look forward to in the coming years.

Steve132
08-06-2009, 02:33 PM
Guys, I dont think its wise to compare peoples careers at a certain age, I think a persons career should be judged when they have their racquets hung up. Some are early bloomers ala Rafa and Borg and some are late ala Federer, its incomparable like.

Excellent advice. Agassi, Chang, Courier and Sampras are all about the same age, but their career trajectories were dramatically different. Chang won a major at age 17 and that remained his only major, although he did reach three other finals and was ranked at world no. 2. Courier won four majors before the age of 23, but achieved virtually nothing afterwards. Sampras won the U.S. Open at 19 and a few years later began a long tenure as world no. 1. Agassi had the strangest career path of all - early success, mid-career burnout and then a triumphant return to form which led him to play his most consistent tennis after age 30.

I doubt if any observer in say, 1990, could have predicted these events. That's why we have to be very, very careful when predicting what any particular player will achieve in the future.