40 Singles Titles in 4 Consecutive Years

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Do you think any player will ever again win 40 singles titles in 4 Years?

Federer won 42 from 2004-2007.
Borg won 42 from 1977-1980
Connors won 49 from 1973-1976.

Lendl won 39 from 1980-1983
McEnroe won 34 from 1979-1982
Sampras won 31 from 1994-1997
Nadal won 30 from 2005-2008

No other player has managed 30 singles titles in 4 years.
 
Andres

Andres

G.O.A.T.
That's of course, only counting officially-recognized-ATP tournaments. If not, Nastase's would be very well into the 40s, and Vilas could scratch the 40s mark, as well.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
McEnroeisanartist said:
Do you think any player will ever again win 40 singles titles in 4 Years?

Federer won 42 from 2004-2007.
Borg won 42 from 1977-1980
Connors won 49 from 1973-1976.

Lendl won 39 from 1980-1983
McEnroe won 34 from 1979-1982
Sampras won 31 from 1994-1997
Nadal won 30 from 2005-2008

No other player has managed 30 singles titles in 4 years.
Click to expand...

Borg is tie with Fed at 42 but Fed won more important titles.

connors won 49 but how many mickey mouse titles?

The weight of each titles has a lot more to say than just total number of titles. Just saying...:)
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
What's were those tournaments that were won? E.g how many were slams or master equivalents etc...
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Laver won 66 titles in 4 years (1966-1969). He even won 38 titles in his last 2 years as an amateur (1961-1962).

Gonzales won 42 titles in 4 years (1954-1957), while also winning professional head-to-head tours against Segura, Sedgman, Budge, McGregor, Trabert and Rosewall in those years.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Mustard said:
Laver won 66 titles in 4 years (1966-1969). He even won 38 titles in his last 2 years as an amateur (1961-1962).

Gonzales won 42 titles in 4 years (1954-1957), while also winning professional head-to-head tours against Segura, Sedgman, Budge, McGregor, Trabert and Rosewall in those years.
Click to expand...

I knew you will bring in the pre-era.

As I've mentioned above, the total titles doesn't say much, but the weight of each title that is important. Who cares if a player win 20 mickey mouse titles, a player win 1 slam outweight all of them.
 
SQA333

SQA333

Hall of Fame
Not anytime soon. Nadal is the closest, and he can barely manage to walk right now. So Fed is safe for now.
 
M

mary fierce

Banned
Weird thread. If something's been done several times in just the last few decades, why WOULDN'T you think it will be done again??
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
NatF said:
What's were those tournaments that were won? E.g how many were slams or master equivalents etc...
Click to expand...

Roger Federer
Australian Open: 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010
French Open: 2009
Wimbledon: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
US Open: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

Masters Cup/World Tour Finals: 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011

Indian Wells: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012
Miami: 2005, 2006
Hamburg: 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007
Madrid (clay): 2009, 2012
Canada: 2004, 2006
Cincinnati: 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012
Madrid (indoor hardcourt): 2006
Paris Indoor: 2011


Bjorn Borg
French Open: 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981
Wimbledon: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980

Masters: January 1980, January 1981
WCT Dallas: 1976

Las Vegas: 1979, 1980
Monte Carlo: 1977, 1979, 1980
Rome: 1974, 1978
Boston: 1974, 1975, 1976
Canada: 1979
Tokyo: 1978, 1979
Stockholm: 1980
Wembley: 1977


Jimmy Connors
Australian Open: 1974
Wimbledon: 1974, 1982
US Open: 1974, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1983

Masters: January 1978
WCT Dallas: 1977, 1980

Philadelphia: 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980
Johannesburg: 1973, 1974
Los Angeles: 1973
Las Vegas: 1976, 1977
Boston: 1973
Indianapolis: 1974, 1976
Washington: 1976
Tokyo: 1980, 1984
Wembley: 1976, 1981


Ivan Lendl
Australian Open: 1989, 1990
French Open: 1984, 1986, 1987
US Open: 1985, 1986, 1987

Masters: January 1982, January 1983, January 1986, December 1986, 1987
WCT Dallas: 1982, 1985

Las Vegas: 1981
Boca West: 1986
Miami: 1989
Monte Carlo: 1985, 1988
Rome: 1986, 1988
Forest Hills: 1982, 1985
Hamburg: 1987, 1989
Canada: 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989
Cincinnati: 1982
Philadelphia: 1986
Tokyo: 1983, 1985
Stockholm: 1989


John McEnroe
Wimbledon: 1981, 1983, 1984
US Open: 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984

Masters: January 1979, January 1984, January 1985
WCT Dallas: 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1989

Philadelphia: 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985
Forest Hills: 1983, 1984
Canada: 1984, 1985
Cincinnati: 1981
Tokyo: 1982
Stockholm: 1978, 1979, 1984, 1985,
Wembley: 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983


Pete Sampras
Australian Open: 1994, 1997
Wimbledon: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
US Open: 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002

World Championships: 1991, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999
Grand Slam Cup: 1990, 1997

Indian Wells: 1994, 1995
Miami: 1993, 1994, 2000
Rome: 1994
Cincinnati: 1992, 1997, 1999
Paris Indoor: 1995, 1997


Rafael Nadal
Australian Open: 2009
French Open: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012
Wimbledon: 2008, 2010
US Open: 2010

Indian Wells: 2007, 2009
Monte Carlo: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Rome: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012
Hamburg: 2008
Madrid (clay): 2010
Canada: 2005, 2008
Madrid (indoor hardcourt): 2005
 
TheFifthSet

TheFifthSet

Legend
TMF said:
Borg is tie with Fed at 42 but Fed won more important titles.

connors won 49 but how many mickey mouse titles?

The weight of each titles has a lot more to say than just total number of titles. Just saying...:)
Click to expand...

Dude, the OP didn't include any analysis whatsoever, it just listed the facts, nobody was being slighted. No need to be insecure.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
I knew you will bring in the pre-era.

As I've mentioned above, the total titles doesn't say much, but the weight of each title that is important. Who cares if a player win 20 mickey mouse titles, a player win 1 slam outweight all of them.
Click to expand...

TMF, You think Laver won Mickey Mouse tournaments from 1966 to 1969? Then learn history!
 
T

timnz

Legend
Lendl

Actually you could add up to another 10 titles from the 1980 to 1983 to Lendl's total. The ATP didn't recognize every title. But Lendl still had to do the work to win them. The Antwerp event being missed out from the ATP totals is particularly glaring.

The 10 titles I am talking about:

1980 Sept 10-14 São Paulo - Brazil Invitational Cup Clay Gene Mayer 6–3, 7–5

1980 Feb 25-27 Genoa - Bitti Bergamo Memorial Carpet Johan Kriek 6–2, 6–2

1981 Aug 26-30 White Plains - AMF Head Cup Hard Ilie Năstase W/O

1981 Nov 4–5 Calcutta - Indian Classic Cup Hard John Alexander 6–4, 6–2

1981 Nov 7–8 Jakarta - Indonesian Grand Prix Tennis Hard Wojciech Fibak 6–1, 7–6, 9–7

1981 Nov 23-29 Milan - Master Brooklyn Chewing Gum Carpet John McEnroe 6–4, 2–6, 6–4

1982 Feb 4–7 Toronto - Molson Light Challenge Carpet John McEnroe 7–5, 3–6, 7–6, 7–5

1982 Oct 19-24 Melbourne - Mazda Super Challenge Carpet Vitas Gerulaitis 6–2, 6–2, 7–5

1982 Nov 30-Dec 5 Antwerp - European Champions' Championship Carpet John McEnroe 3–6, 7–6, 6–3, 6–3

1983 Jan 10-16 Rosemont - Lite Challenge of Champions Carpet Jimmy Connors 4–6, 6–4, 7–5, 6–4
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
Borg is tie with Fed at 42 but Fed won more important titles.

connors won 49 but how many mickey mouse titles?

The weight of each titles has a lot more to say than just total number of titles. Just saying...:)
Click to expand...
This ^. Connors won a massive heap of titles in his career that wouldn't even be equivalent to 250 level tournaments today. He was prolific but the 70s and early 80s were boom-time for top players racking up easy titles.
 
T

timnz

Legend
Connors and level of tournaments

Bobby Jr said:
This ^. Connors won a massive heap of titles in his career that wouldn't even be equivalent to 250 level tournaments today. He was prolific but the 70s and early 80s were boom-time for top players racking up easy titles.
Click to expand...

To balance this:

Connors won 28 tournaments that were Masters 1000 equivalent or greater in stature. He got to a further 21 finals of tournaments at that level. So that makes 49 tournament finals of Masters 1000 equivalent or greater level. Hence, he couldn't be accused of just winning at the low level of tournament.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
To balance this:

Connors won 28 tournaments that were Masters 1000 equivalent..... He got to a further 21 finals of tournaments at that leve....Hence, he couldn't be accused of just winning at the low level of tournament.
Click to expand...
I didn't say just winning low level tournaments. His sheer number of titles are however hugely inflated by them.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
McEnroeisanartist said:
Do you think any player will ever again win 40 singles titles in 4 Years?

Federer won 42 from 2004-2007.
Borg won 42 from 1977-1980
Connors won 49 from 1973-1976.

Lendl won 39 from 1980-1983
McEnroe won 34 from 1979-1982
Sampras won 31 from 1994-1997
Nadal won 30 from 2005-2008

No other player has managed 30 singles titles in 4 years.
Click to expand...

From 1976 to 1979 Borg actually won 64 tournaments. The ATP records didn't keep track of all tournament victories instead some WCT tournaments. You can argue Borg's year in 1979 was better than some of the player's careers who are in the Hall of Fame. Borg won 21 tournaments, Wimbledon, the French, the Canadian Open and the Year End Masters. Compare his one year to Patrick Rafter's entire career for example.
 
Last edited:
Ms Nadal

Ms Nadal

Semi-Pro
Fed has been very lucky to avoid injuries due to his effortless playing style. We will never see his like again. And he schedules well so that he has enough rest throughout the year.
 
sbengte

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Comparing the total no. of titles doesn't mean much IMO. Players can choose to play a bunch of 250 tournaments with weak fields and collect titles.
 
Ms Nadal

Ms Nadal

Semi-Pro
sbengte said:
Comparing the total no. of titles doesn't mean much IMO. Players can choose to play a bunch of 250 tournaments with weak fields and collect titles.
Click to expand...

Very true and we all know how people roll over and die when they play FedEx. He won so many titles like that in the past. Fed had won many matches before he went onto the court. He had such an aura. I used to not bother watching the matches as I knew he would win.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Ms Nadal said:
Very true and we all know how people roll over and die when they play FedEx. He won so many titles like that in the past. Fed had won many matches before he went onto the court. He had such an aura. I used to not bother watching the matches as I knew he would win.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's the case with many great players. Federer wins the matches (usually) that he's supposed to win. He's upset very rarely by clearly inferior players and that's not easy to do. Look at Murray, he loses often to players I believe he should crush.
 
Ms Nadal

Ms Nadal

Semi-Pro
pc1 said:
Yes but that's the case with many great players. Federer wins the matches (usually) that he's supposed to win. He's upset very rarely by clearly inferior players and that's not easy to do. Look at Murray, he loses often to players I believe he should crush.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right. But FedEx was so dominate during those years. He was untouchable :shock:.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Bobby Jr said:
This ^. Connors won a massive heap of titles in his career that wouldn't even be equivalent to 250 level tournaments today. He was prolific but the 70s and early 80s were boom-time for top players racking up easy titles.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and thanks. It's misleading just to look at #'s of titles without knowing event that each player won. If people just go blindly by the numbers, then Connors is the goat because he holds the record for most single titles. Agassi has more titles than Sampras, but Sampras is way more accomplished and a greater player.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
I knew you will bring in the pre-era.

As I've mentioned above, the total titles doesn't say much, but the weight of each title that is important. Who cares if a player win 20 mickey mouse titles, a player win 1 slam outweight all of them.
Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:
TMF, You think Laver won Mickey Mouse tournaments from 1966 to 1969? Then learn history!
Click to expand...

Mustard said:
And ruin the illusion of Federer being the only GOAT contender? LOL :twisted:
Click to expand...

TMF,

Do you realize the competition that players like Laver and Gonzalez faced? Gonzalez, in the late 1950's toured with Anderson and Cooper. Cooper I believe the year before won three classic majors and Anderson won a major as an amateur also. Gonzalez defeated Anderson and Cooper by a combined match scored of 34 to 0. Essentially defeating Gonzalez in a single match was tougher for them than winning several majors.

You have to look at the strength of the tournaments also. Yes there are some weaker tournaments but almost never in the pros in those days. The competition was generally very very strong.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
pc1 said:
TMF,

Do you realize the competition that players like Laver and Gonzalez faced? Gonzalez, in the late 1950's toured with Anderson and Cooper. Cooper I believe the year before won three classic majors and Anderson won a major as an amateur also. Gonzalez defeated Anderson and Cooper by a combined match scored of 34 to 0. Essentially defeating Gonzalez in a single match was tougher for them than winning several majors.

You have to look at the strength of the tournaments also. Yes there are some weaker tournaments but almost never in the pros in those days. The competition was generally very very strong.
Click to expand...

Gonzales did this regularly. Trabert was the best amateur player by far in 1955 by winning 3 of the 4 majors. Trabert turned pro in the fall of that year and faced Gonzales in a 101 match tour going well into 1956, and Gonzales won 74-27. The following year, Gonzales beat Rosewall 50-26, and the year after that, beat Hoad 51-36. True ability tells even more over such a long format, as there's no chance that an off day or a little run of form can overshadow the reality in the players' abilities.
 
R

ramosxp

New User
Lendl was without a doubt the most underated #1 if you look at his head to head vs other hall of famers, and players of his Era. There aren't many that can say they have a winning record over him, perhaps only Pete.

I think the 40/4 had a much better chance of happening years ago. Obviously the depth in the game has a lot to do with it. Lendl himself said theh biggest difference was early round losses in major tournaments made headlines, today they happen all the time.

It may happen, you never know. I think a tougher record to beat is the Fed Majors Quarterfinal or better streak, Semi Final streak as well. The reason not just because it's 4 tournaments in a year and you have to go 4 years without an early loss, but because you have the best of the best on 3 different surfaces. To me, that's Fed's legacy, not the majors, but the consistency, over multiple surfaces over many years.
 
M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
ramosxp said:
Lendl was without a doubt the most underated #1 if you look at his head to head vs other hall of famers, and players of his Era. There aren't many that can say they have a winning record over him, perhaps only Pete.

I think the 40/4 had a much better chance of happening years ago. Obviously the depth in the game has a lot to do with it. Lendl himself said theh biggest difference was early round losses in major tournaments made headlines, today they happen all the time.

It may happen, you never know. I think a tougher record to beat is the Fed Majors Quarterfinal or better streak, Semi Final streak as well. The reason not just because it's 4 tournaments in a year and you have to go 4 years without an early loss, but because you have the best of the best on 3 different surfaces. To me, that's Fed's legacy, not the majors, but the consistency, over multiple surfaces over many years.
Click to expand...

Well said. But, I don't know about Lendl's comment. Today it seems early round losses at big tournaments almost never happens to the big 4. That is remarkable about them is how consistent they have been each grand slam for years now.
 
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
ramosxp said:
Lendl was without a doubt the most underated #1 if you look at his head to head vs other hall of famers, and players of his Era. There aren't many that can say they have a winning record over him, perhaps only Pete.

I think the 40/4 had a much better chance of happening years ago. Obviously the depth in the game has a lot to do with it. Lendl himself said theh biggest difference was early round losses in major tournaments made headlines, today they happen all the time.

It may happen, you never know. I think a tougher record to beat is the Fed Majors Quarterfinal or better streak, Semi Final streak as well. The reason not just because it's 4 tournaments in a year and you have to go 4 years without an early loss, but because you have the best of the best on 3 different surfaces. To me, that's Fed's legacy, not the majors, but the consistency, over multiple surfaces over many years.
Click to expand...

This must be a joke, right?

There has never been a time before in tennis where the top players reach almost always the SF stage as they do today.

Today is much easier for them ( for the top4 ) to reach the SF stage than ever before.

It is a fact, you have only to look at the data.
 
M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
kalyan4fedever said:
May be the OP is counting if fed can reach the titles of connors in 4 years ofcourse.
Click to expand...

I selected four years because I knew Connors, Borg, and Federer had done it and no one else, so it was achieveable, but there have been several other players who were able to win at least 30 titles in 4 years, but 40 titles is an incredible achievement.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
Exactly, and thanks. It's misleading just to look at #'s of titles without knowing event that each player won. If people just go blindly by the numbers, then Connors is the goat because he holds the record for most single titles. Agassi has more titles than Sampras, but Sampras is way more accomplished and a greater player.
Click to expand...

Actually Sampras won more tournaments I believe 64 to 60 and had a higher winning percentage.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=S402&oId=A092
 
Polvorin

Polvorin

Professional
These kinda stats are always misleading imo. If the guys cared about padding their tournament victory stats they could play more of the smaller events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer's 34 singles titles in 3 consecutive years
Replies
8
Views
1K
nikdom
N
Lew II
Career Slams won by year-end top5
Replies
22
Views
937
KINGROGER
K
M
  • Poll
Do you think Men's 2019 Year End #1 will have won most titles for the year or no?
Replies
5
Views
388
topher
topher
JennyS
20+ match winning streaks in open era
Replies
9
Views
1K
joeri888
J
Lew II
Players who reached top-5 positions by year:
Replies
9
Views
621
MS_07
MS_07
Top