Peak Level over Five Years

Carsomyr · Aug 3, 2014

eldanger25 said:
I wrote this above, but I'd go with 2006-10 over 2007-11. I know 2011 had an extra slam final and better results on slow hard courts, but I think 2006 was ultimately a better year - more titles on more surfaces, better w/p overall, etc. - plus Nadal protected his home surface better (right in the middle of his 81 match clay winning streak), had a slightly better fall season (to his standards), and had that great win on the fast courts of Dubai to snap Fed's 56 match HC winning streak.

2011 does have the Davis Cup win, however, and great consistency across surfaces - it's a close call.

But then there's this caveat: in 2011, Nadal was a more achieved player than in 2006, and all the nuances that entails - the aura of entering the season as the best player in the world, coming off a three-slam year, for example.

Same thing with Federer: '03-'07 or '04-'08? Arguments could be made for including either '03 and '08 in that stretch. In 2003, it's arguable he was the best player in the world, but was very underwhelming at the majors other than his Wimbledon win. In 2008, bad losses crept up and Nadal started permanently turning the tide, but his major results were far better than in 2003 and he had the 12 major aura to his credit.

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Carsomyr said:
But then there's this caveat: in 2011, Nadal was a more achieved player than in 2006, and all the nuances that entails - the aura of entering the season as the best player in the world, coming off a three-slam year, for example.

Same thing with Federer: '03-'07 or '04-'08? Arguments could be made for including either '03 and '08 in that stretch. In 2003, it's arguable he was the best player in the world, but was very underwhelming at the majors other than his Wimbledon win. In 2008, bad losses crept up and Nadal started permanently turning the tide, but his major results were far better than in 2003 and he had the 12 major aura to his credit.

Some very good points - in some ways, it's a question of where you stand on Federer 2006 v. Djokovic 2011. I'll counter in favor of Nadal 2006 in a few ways:

1. The now-familiar terms of the Federer-Nadal rivalry (at least between the ears) hadn't yet been established at the beginning of 2006, when Nadal was still a teenager coming off what turned out to be his one true clay court specialist season in 2005 (I think the only year of his career where he played more matches on clay than hard courts, something like 50-plus matches overall on the surface). 2006 was the first year he scheduled himself to face Federer on all fronts - where they truly locked swords for the first time across the tour, and Nadal began to assert himself in the matchup.

2. The 2006 RG final was the first time Nadal protected Laver's 4 straight slams record - and he did it a minute after turning 20. He obviously went on to do the same in 2007 and 2012, but that first time was maybe most impressive in terms of managing pressure, and there isn't an equivalent in his 2011.

As far as Federer goes, I'd probably go with 2004-08 in terms of level of play, given his issues at the other three slams in 2003 (though his work at SW19 and the YEC in 2003 makes it very, very hard). I really liked his 2008 US Open defense - even with the Andreev 5 setter, it was just a great, clinical run - and thought he was so impressive level-wise at the tournament overall and mentally in the title fight at Wimbledon that year, even with the loss to Nadal. There's just nobody better at accelerating back to his best coming off a rain delay than Federer - that's an underrated mental strength.

There's even an argument for 2005-09 if you think about it - 2004 is my favorite season of his, but 2009 gives you his return to the throne after the Nadal losses, great consistency at the big events, and the emotional Channel Slam.

pc1 · Aug 3, 2014

Carsomyr said:
What five year stretch would we use for Nadal? Per one poster's criteria of being the best player for the majority of the time, it's a tricky proposition.

Just use the best winning percentage over one period. It very often coincides the period with the most majors or percentage of majors won.

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

pc1 said:
Just use the best winning percentage over one period. It very often coincides the period with the most majors or percentage of majors won.

Still sort of tough with Nadal - I think technically overall w/p for him would be 2009-13 (maybe one percentage point higher than 2006-10, likely due to him having his best results on HCs in the 2009-13 range, given that they comprise 2/3ds of the tour these days).

But how can you say 2009-13 is Nadal's peak level over five years when he went 2-3 on grass during the latter two years of that time frame? In comparison, he was something like 37-5 on grass in 2006-10, with several big runs at Wimbledon and a title at Queens?

I agree with your general point about correlation between w/p and titles - Nadal may just be one of those exceptions that proves the rule.

pc1 · Aug 3, 2014

eldanger25 said:
Still sort of tough with Nadal - I think technically overall w/p for him would be 2009-13 (maybe one percentage point higher than 2006-10, likely due to him having his best results on HCs in the 2009-13 range, given that they comprise 2/3ds of the tour these days).

But how can you say 2009-13 is Nadal's peak level over five years when he went 2-3 on grass during the latter two years of that time frame? In comparison, he was something like 37-5 on grass in 2006-10, with several big runs at Wimbledon and a title at Queens?

I agree with your general point about correlation between w/p and titles - Nadal may just be one of those exceptions that proves the rule.

Why don't you break it down in several categories and do the comparison side by side so we can get other opinions? Remember we're trying to analyze top level of play over these five years by looking at the records and perhaps the opponents.

Carsomyr · Aug 3, 2014

pc1 said:
Just use the best winning percentage over one period. It very often coincides the period with the most majors or percentage of majors won.

But the problem is that Nadal has so many five year periods we could point to: some are arguing '06-'10, some for '07-'11 (which I'm in favor of), but you could also make compelling arguments for '08-'12 and '09-'13 as well. You, I guess, would fall in the last category, since Nadal's winning percentages in '12 and '13 were 88% and 91%, respectively, and would probably skew that period for our purposes here.

But because four of his ten Slam-winning seasons see his winning percentage at 82 or 83% (and with 85% thus far this season and fast approaching his, historically, least productive part of the year, it could well be five) and they weren't all in a row, spaced arbitrarily between his more dominant seasons, it's difficult to say what five year period was the best tennis he produced. Which is why I'm not so much in favor of the '05-'09 argument for Federer, because I feel '04 was, on average, better play from him than in '09.

pc1 · Aug 3, 2014

Carsomyr said:
But the problem is that Nadal has so many five year periods we could point to: some are arguing '06-'10, some for '07-'11 (which I'm in favor of), but you could also make compelling arguments for '08-'12 and '09-'13 as well. You, I guess, would fall in the last category, since Nadal's winning percentages in '12 and '13 were 88% and 91%, respectively, and would probably skew that period for our purposes here.

But because four of his ten Slam-winning seasons see his winning percentage at 82 or 83% (and with 85% thus far this season and fast approaching his, historically, least productive part of the year, it could well be five) and they weren't all in a row, spaced arbitrarily between his more dominant seasons, it's difficult to say what five year period was the best tennis he produced. Which is why I'm not so much in favor of the '05-'09 argument for Federer, because I feel '04 was, on average, better play from him than in '09.

You know what, you're just given proof of the great consistency and greatness of Nadal over his career. So many periods to pick from. Thanks for the info.

Carsomyr · Aug 3, 2014

pc1 said:
You know what, you're just given proof of the great consistency and greatness of Nadal over his career. So many periods to pick from. Thanks for the info.

Nadal's legacy when he walks away will be his unrivaled consistency, despite occasional injury woes and lapses in form. To win a major ten years in a row (and possibly counting) is unprecedented and an achievement to behold.

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

pc1 said:
Why don't you break it down in several categories and do the comparison side by side so we can get other opinions? Remember we're trying to analyze top level of play over these five years by looking at the records and perhaps the opponents.

Well, I can get the ball rolling on this at least (already procrastinating enough from the real world). Here goes:

Nadal, 2005-09

Overall w/p: 85.2 percent (356-62)

Clay w/p: 96.3 percent (155-6)
Grass w/p: 82.9 percent (29-6)
Hard w/p: 77.5 percent (172-50)

Average calendar year record, overall: 71-12
Average calendar year, clay: 31-1
Average calendar year, grass: 6-1
Average calendar year, hard: 34-10

Titles: 35 (24 clay, 8 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard, 2 grass)
Finals: 45 (26 on clay, 12 on outdoor hard, 3 indoor hard, 4 grass)

GS titles: 6 (4 RG, 1 Wimbledon, 1 AO)
GS finals: 8 (4 RG, 3 Wimbledon, 1 AO)
Title round record, GS events: 6-2 (4-0 RG, 1-2 Wimbledon, 1-0 AO)

Olympic Gold Medal, 2008

MS 1000 titles: 15 (10 clay, 4 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 21 (12 clay, 7 outdoor hard, 2 indoor hard)

500 series titles: 9 (8 clay, 1 hard)
500 series finals: 10 (8 clay, 1 hard, 1 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: SF 2x, (2006/07)

YE #1: 1 (2008 )
Weeks at #1: 46
Record vs. Top 10: 57-30 (65.5 percent)
Record vs. Top 5: 33-16 (67.3 percent)

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Nadal, 2006-10

Overall w/p: 84.9 percent (348-62)

Clay w/p: 96.9 percent (127-4)
Grass w/p: 88.1 percent (37-5)
Hard w/p: 77.6 percent (184-53)

Average calendar year record, overall: 70-12
Average calendar year, clay: 25-1
Average calendar year, grass: 7-1
Average calendar year, hard: 37-10

Titles: 31 (20 clay, 8 outdoor hard, 3 grass)
Finals: 42 (22 on clay, 12 on outdoor hard, 3 indoor hard, 5 grass)

GS titles: 8 (4 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 AO, 1 US Open)
GS finals: 10 (4 RG, 4 Wimbledon, 1 AO, 1 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 8-2 (4-0 RG, 2-2 Wimbledon, 1-0 AO, 1-0 US Open)

Olympic Gold Medal, 2008

MS 1000 titles: 14 (11 clay, 3 outdoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 19 (13 clay, 5 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)

500 series titles: 7 (5 clay, 2 hard)
500 series finals: 8 (5 clay, 2 hard, 1 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Finalist, 1x (2010)

YE #1: 2 (2008, 2010 )
Weeks at #1: 76
Record vs. Top 10: 63-32 (66.3 percent)
Record vs. Top 5: 37-17 (68.5 percent)

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Nadal, 2007-11

Overall w/p: 84.6 percent (358-65)

Clay w/p: 95.6 percent (129-6)
Grass w/p: 88.1 percent (37-5)
Hard w/p: 78.0 percent (192-54)

Average calendar year record, overall: 72-13
Average calendar year, clay: 26-1
Average calendar year, grass: 7-1
Average calendar year, hard: 38-11

Titles: 29 (19 clay, 7 outdoor hard, 3 grass)
Finals: 46 (23 on clay, 15 on outdoor hard, 3 indoor hard, 5 grass)

GS titles: 8 (4 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 AO, 1 US Open)
GS finals: 11 (4 RG, 4 Wimbledon, 1 AO, 2 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 8-3 (4-0 RG, 2-2 Wimbledon, 1-0 AO, 1-1 US Open)

Olympic Gold Medal, 2008

MS 1000 titles: 13 (10 clay, 3 outdoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 22 (14 clay, 7 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)

500 series titles: 6 (5 clay, 1 hard)
500 series finals: 8 (5 clay, 2 hard, 1 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Finalist, 1x (2010)

YE #1: 2 (2008, 2010 )
Weeks at #1: 102
Record vs. Top 10: 69-40 (63.3 percent)
Record vs. Top 5: 39-23 (62.9 percent)

Carsomyr · Aug 3, 2014

Great stuff, keep it coming. '06-'10 and '07-'11 are separated by mere fractions. Granted, they share four years, but still.

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Nadal, 2009-13

Overall w/p: 86.1 percent (323-52)

Clay w/p: 95.1 percent (136-7)
Grass w/p: 76 percent (19-6)
Hard w/p: 81.2 percent (168-39)

Average calendar year record, overall: 65-10
Average calendar year, clay: 27-1
Average calendar year, grass: 4-1
Average calendar year, hard: 34-8

Titles: 29 (20 clay, 8 outdoor hard, 1 grass)
Finals: 46 (25 on clay, 16 on outdoor hard, 3 indoor hard, 2 grass)

GS titles: 8 (4 RG, 1 Wimbledon, 1 AO, 2 US Open)
GS finals: 11 (4 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 2 AO, 3 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 8-3 (4-0 RG, 1-1 Wimbledon, 1-1 AO, 2-1 US Open)

MS 1000 titles: 14 (10 clay, 4 outdoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 20 (14 clay, 7 outdoor hard)

500 series titles: 6 (5 clay, 1 hard)
500 series finals: 9 (5 clay, 3 hard, 1 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Finalist, 2x (2010, 2013)

YE #1: 2 (2010, 2013)
Weeks at #1: 95
Record vs. Top 10: 76-34 (69.1 percent)
Record vs. Top 5: 36-23 (61.0 percent)

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Here's 2008-12 for the hell of it:

Nadal, 2008-12

Overall w/p: 85.5 percent (330-56)

Clay w/p: 95.3 percent (121-6)
Grass w/p: 86.1 percent (31-5)
Hard w/p: 79.6 percent (176-45)

Average calendar year record, overall: 66-11
Average calendar year, clay: 24-1
Average calendar year, grass: 6-1
Average calendar year, hard: 35-9

Titles: 27 (18 clay, 6 outdoor hard, 3 grass)
Finals: 42 (21 on clay, 15 on outdoor hard, 2 indoor hard, 4 grass)

GS titles: 8 (4 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 AO, 1 US Open)
GS finals: 11 (4 RG, 3 Wimbledon, 2 AO, 2 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 8-3 (4-0 RG, 2-1 Wimbledon, 1-1 AO, 1-1 US Open)

Olympic Gold Medal, 2008

MS 1000 titles: 12 (10 clay, 2 outdoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 19 (13 clay, 6 outdoor hard)

500 series titles: 5 (4 clay, 1 hard)
500 series finals: 7 (4 clay, 2 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Finalist, 1x (2010)

YE #1: 2 (2008, 2010)
Weeks at #1: 102
Record vs. Top 10: 69-35 (66.3 percent)
Record vs. Top 5: 35-21 (62.5 percent)

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

For what it's worth, Nadal's #s when you piece together his best 5 seasons non-consecutively (2005, 2007-08, 2010, 2013) is something like 87.7 percent w/p overall (377-53). 9 majors in 10 finals (5 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 2 US Open); 18 MS 1000 titles (11 clay, 6 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard); Olympic gold; two YEC finalists; 42 titles overall (27 clay, 11 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard, 3 grass), 54 finals.

Average calendar year record of 75-10. 166-6 on clay (avg. 33-1), 30-6 on grass (avg. 6-1), 181-41 on HC (avg. 36-8 ).

3 YE #1s, 65-70 wks at #1.

Not the point of the thread, but figured I'd add it, since he's had an injury-riddled career to an extent.

pc1 · Aug 3, 2014

Eldanger25,

Unbelievable work. Thanks. It's very late here so I can't discuss it now but hopefully we can discuss and dissect everything later. (Just wanted to put the word dissect in a sentence, don't know why. lol.)

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

pc1 said:
Eldanger25,

Unbelievable work. Thanks. It's very late here so I can't discuss it now but hopefully we can discuss and dissect everything later. (Just wanted to put the word dissect in a sentence, don't know why. lol.)

Thanks - looking forward to it.

BobbyOne · Aug 3, 2014

NatF said:
Thanks for this Bobby, Rosewall looks to have been very dominant in those tours.

NatF, Rosewall when off his game lost terribly (1960 World Tour to Gonzalez). 1968 twice badly to Laver, and so on). But when he was in form he had sometimes stretches of great play as in these tours or in the 1958 Perrier Trophy (clay) when he finished with an awesome record against very strong claycourters, Hoad, Segura and Trabert: 16:1! (altogether 20:4 but some late matches were played indoors and Muscles lost two matches against Gonzalez who replaced Hoad). Worth to remember is also the 1957 Austraian (grass) tour with a 15:5 winner Rosewall against two very strong grasscourters, Hoad and Sedgman (plus fine grasscourter, Segura).

Unfortunately Rosewall just edged out Laver in the long 1964 tour when such balances counted most.

BobbyOne · Aug 3, 2014

kiki said:
How many pro slams did Gimeno win? or a sort of YEC for pros? Olmedo won the massive US Pro in 1960.

Gimeno was more consistent, Alex more brilliant.

kiki, oh kiki! Why do you ask these questions?. You do know about the reasons for not winning pro majors named R.L.& K.R...

Gimeno won the 1966 Barcelona championships against Rosewall and Laver which was a quasi major (best claycourt event that year).

Olmedo won the non-massive US Pro in 1960: only six participants, two of them grandpa Frank Parker and teaching pro, Giammalva; only two top players participating: Segura and Trabert....

Gimeno was more brillant than Olmedo: Andres was a real top player (No.3 in the world for several years, at least 35 wins against peak/prime Rosewall), Alex was maybe No. 6 in 1963 at his best placing.

BobbyOne · Aug 3, 2014

NatF said:
Ok, so the draw was weak but because it was the US Pro it counts for more? I can buy that, but it's still not particularly impressive. You have double standards on this point. You'll take a metaphoric number #2 on the achievements of players you judge come from weaker era's, but when it comes to your favorites, even if they win in a depleted field it counts all the same to you :lol:

NatF, This is known as "Kiki/Kodes syndrom" ;-)

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Carsomyr said:
Great stuff, keep it coming. '06-'10 and '07-'11 are separated by mere fractions. Granted, they share four years, but still.

Yeah, Nadal's humming along at 85-86 percent w/p for pretty much every 5 year stretch I looked at. Cranks out around 1-2 majors a year (1 RG, 1 somewhere else), 3 MS titles (2 clay, 1 hard) for pretty much all these as well. Same with titles, overall: usually about 6 titles a year (4 on clay, 2 off), 8-9 finals a year. Wins 2 out of every 3 matches he plays against the Top 10.

Pretty hard to choose - still might go with 2006-10 given the peak clay record (97 percent over half a decade, two undefeated seasons - just unreal) plus the overlap b/w solid grass court and hard court results.

In any event, it's just very hard to stray too far from 2008 in either direction - probably his best level of play period, including a ridiculous 36-1 on natural surfaces. But then again, 2009-13 has his best w/p, best Top 10 w/p etc., and a great mix of titles/consistency across surfaces.

Carsomyr · Aug 3, 2014

eldanger25 said:
Yeah, Nadal's humming along at 85-86 percent w/p for pretty much every 5 year stretch I looked at. Cranks out around 1-2 majors a year (1 RG, 1 somewhere else), 3 MS titles (2 clay, 1 hard) for pretty much all these as well. Same with titles, overall: usually about 6 titles a year (4 on clay, 2 off), 8-9 finals a year. Wins 2 out of every 3 matches he plays against the Top 10.

Pretty hard to choose - still might go with 2006-10 given the peak clay record (97 percent over half a decade, two undefeated seasons - just unreal) plus the overlap b/w solid grass court and hard court results.

In any event, it's just very hard to stray too far from 2008 in either direction - probably his best level of play period, including a ridiculous 36-1 on natural surfaces. But then again, 2009-13 has his best w/p, best Top 10 w/p etc., and a great mix of titles/consistency across surfaces.

I might go 2006-2010 too vs. the strongest argument in 2009-2013; two Wimbledons, two channel slams is nothing to sneeze at, and the first couple of years coincided with a more experienced Federer playing at his peak. He still went 7-5 against Fed in this period.

I'll copy your study format and do one for Federer for both '03-'07 and '04-'08.

eldanger25 · Aug 3, 2014

Carsomyr said:
I might go 2006-2010 too vs. the strongest argument in 2009-2013; two Wimbledons, two channel slams is nothing to sneeze at, and the first couple of years coincided with a more experienced Federer playing at his peak. He still went 7-5 against Fed in this period.

I'll copy your study format and do one for Federer for both '03-'07 and '04-'08.

Very cool - looking forward to the Federer results. I think I ultimately agree with you that those are the two best ranges to use - you just can't chop 2004, such a great season.

Carsomyr · Aug 4, 2014

Federer, 2003-07

Overall w/p: 90.6 percent (393-41)

Clay w/p: 84.8 percent (78-14)
Grass w/p: 100 percent (54-0)
Hard w/p: 91.1 percent (245-24)

Average calendar year record, overall: 79-8
Average calendar year, clay: 16-3
Average calendar year, grass: 11-0
Average calendar year, hard: 49-5

Titles: 49 (5 clay, 27 outdoor hard, 7 indoor hard, 1 carpet, 9 grass)
Finals: 60 (12 on clay, 29 on outdoor hard, 8 indoor hard, 2 carpet, 9 grass)

GS titles: 12 (0 RG, 5 Wimbledon, 3 AO, 4 US Open)
GS finals: 14 (2 RG, 5 Wimbledon, 3 AO, 4 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 12-2 (0-2 RG, 5-0 Wimbledon, 3-0 AO, 4-0 US Open)

MS 1000 titles: 13 (3 clay, 9 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 19 (7 clay, 10 outdoor hard, 2 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Winner, 4x (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007)

YE #1: 4 (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)
Weeks at #1: 210
Record vs. Top 10: 78-15 (83.9 percent)
Record vs. Top 5: 38-10 (79.2 percent)

eldanger25 · Aug 4, 2014

Good stuff, thanks for working it up - I'll wait for 2004-08 to comment further, but already basically jaw-dropping stats.

One small note - I think you've still got Nadal's overall title match record in there. Looks like you've got Fed at 12-2 during that time period when broken down by major.

Carsomyr · Aug 4, 2014

eldanger25 said:
Good stuff, thanks for working it up - I'll wait for 2004-08 to comment further, but already basically jaw-dropping stats.

One small note - I think you've still got Nadal's overall title match record in there. Looks like you've got Fed at 12-2 during that time period when broken down by major.

Good catch, thanks.

I'll work up 2004-2008 tomorrow, though some things I already have a good idea on without even looking: less titles, one less WTF, worse record against top ten, worse conversion %age in titles and finals across the board. The only thing I can think of is more two more Slam finals.

And some of it is just mind-boggling. An average of 90% match wins, of a 79-8 match record, over five years?

eldanger25 · Aug 4, 2014

Carsomyr said:
Good catch, thanks. I'll work up 2004-2008 tomorrow, though some things I already have a good idea on without even looking: less titles, one less WTF, worse record against top ten, worse conversion %age in titles and finals across the board. The only thing I can think of is more two more Slam finals.

And some of it is just mind-boggling. An average of 90% match wins, of a 79-8 match record, over five years?

Yeah, pretty ridiculous stuff. I think Connors '74-'78 is at about 92 percent w/p (396-35; 79-7 average match record), and Lendl '85-'89 is around 91 percent overall (352-35, 70-7 average match record), but neither of them had anywhere near Fed's grand slam haul or GS title match conversion rate during their 5 year peaks.

NatF · Aug 4, 2014

Federer was 85% on his worst surface...mental.

eldanger25 · Aug 4, 2014

eldanger25 said:
Yeah, pretty ridiculous stuff. I think Connors '74-'78 is at about 92 percent w/p (396-35; 79-7 average match record), and Lendl '85-'89 is around 91 percent overall (352-35, 70-7 average match record), but neither of them had anywhere near Fed's grand slam haul or GS title match conversion rate during their 5 year peaks.

One more I'll add - Borg '77-'81 (or '76-'80). Definitely in the 90 percent plus zone, and a bunch of big titles (despite skipping the AO all years and events like RG, the YEC, and Dallas once and sometimes twice). Might try to do Borg/Connors/Lendl 5 yr workups tomorrow.

NatF · Aug 4, 2014

I had a cursory look at Sampras the other day;

- 5 YE #1's
- 9 Slams
- 3 YEC

Lacks a very high win/percentage but other wise those are great numbers.

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

eldanger25 said:
One more I'll add - Borg '77-'81 (or '76-'80). Definitely in the 90 percent plus zone, and a bunch of big titles (despite skipping the AO all years and events like RG, the YEC, and Dallas once and sometimes twice). Might try to do Borg/Connors/Lendl 5 yr workups tomorrow.

Borg won over 70 tournaments over five years. The ATP records are off by the way.

NatF · Aug 4, 2014

I imagine getting the record versus the top 10 will be tedious and also hard to complete in light of those uncounted tournaments. Which is a shame.

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

BobbyOne said:
NatF, Rosewall when off his game lost terribly (1960 World Tour to Gonzalez). 1968 twice badly to Laver, and so on). But when he was in form he had sometimes stretches of great play as in these tours or in the 1958 Perrier Trophy (clay) when he finished with an awesome record against very strong claycourters, Hoad, Segura and Trabert: 16:1! (altogether 20:4 but some late matches were played indoors and Muscles lost two matches against Gonzalez who replaced Hoad). Worth to remember is also the 1957 Austraian (grass) tour with a 15:5 winner Rosewall against two very strong grasscourters, Hoad and Sedgman (plus fine grasscourter, Segura).

Unfortunately Rosewall just edged out Laver in the long 1964 tour when such balances counted most.

So let me get this straight BobbyOne. You're writing that on that 1960 World Tour, which Rosewall finished a very very distance second to the Great Pancho Gonzalez with the standings having Gonzalez first with a fantastic record of 49-8, Rosewall second at 32-25, Segura third at 22-28 and Olmedo fourth and last at 11-44 that Rosewall didn't play well when he played Gonzalez but somehow I guess he played well against the others with a 28-10 record. It was the same tour so I doubt Rosewall's level of play varied that much. So somehow, according to you Rosewall just seemed to play well against the other two excellent players but he couldn't play well against Pancho Gonzalez in losing 15 of 19 to Gonzalez. Very interesting logic.

BobbyOne · Aug 4, 2014

pc1 said:
So let me get this straight BobbyOne. You're writing that on that 1960 World Tour, which Rosewall finished a very very distance second to the Great Pancho Gonzalez with the standings having Gonzalez first with a fantastic record of 49-8, Rosewall second at 32-25, Segura third at 22-28 and Olmedo fourth and last at 11-44 that Rosewall didn't play well when he played Gonzalez but somehow I guess he played well against the others with a 28-10 record. It was the same tour so I doubt Rosewall's level of play varied that much. So somehow, according to you Rosewall just seemed to play well against the other two excellent players but he couldn't play well against Pancho Gonzalez in losing 15 of 19 to Gonzalez. Very interesting logic.

pc1, I don't see any wrong with my logic. Where is the problem?

Of course Gonzalez was much better than Segura and Olmedo, and his feat in that tour is admirable. I did not want to take away anything from Pancho. But it's a fact that it does not matter as much when you are a bit away from your peak form against lesser players than against a giant like Gonzalez or Laver.

Pancho was 32 at that tour and I would be astonished that he would have played better in the 1960s tour than in all other tours he played in his peak years. So I guess that Rosewall's form might have been slightly worse than usually. Remember that Muscles dominated Pancho in the previous year which fact is seldom mentioned. Also in other years Rosewall did usually better against Gonzalez than in 1960. F.i. in 1961 they were 2:2...

I also think that the constant change between normal play and 3 bounce rule in that tour could be an issue. Maybe Pancho handled that curious mixture better than Rosewall.

Rosewall's 28:10 record against old Segura and "excellent" Olmedo is not overwhelming.

Regarding Rosewall's bad losses to Laver in 1968 I will say that Muscles himself said after his worst loss ever (winning one game in three sets at Wembley) that he had an off day. Would you (even as a Laver worshipper) believe that Laver generally was so much better than Rosewall? Surely not.

As you know Rosewall leads in his hth against Laver at majors and very often lost to the Rocket only with a narrow margine, at least in big matches like US Pro, Wembley, Masters, Dunlop Sydney.

I guess you will be totally satisfied only when I would admit that Laver, Gonzalez and Borg are miles above that little "thief" named Rosewall. I'm sorry but I can't give you that pleasure.....

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

BobbyOne said:
pc1, I don't see any wrong with my logic. Where is the problem?

Of course Gonzalez was much better than Segura and Olmedo, and his feat in that tour is admirable. I did not want to take away anything from Pancho. But it's a fact that it does not matter as much when you are a bit away from your peak form against lesser players than against a giant like Gonzalez or Laver.

Pancho was 32 at that tour and I would be astonished that he would have played better in the 1960s tour than in all other tours he played in his peak years. So I guess that Rosewall's form might have been slightly worse than usually. Remember that Muscles dominated Pancho in the previous year which fact is seldom mentioned. Also in other years Rosewall did usually better against Gonzalez than in 1960. F.i. in 1961 they were 2:2...

I also think that the constant change between normal play and 3 bounce rule in that tour could be an issue. Maybe Pancho handled that curious mixture better than Rosewall.

Rosewall's 28:10 record against old Segura and "excellent" Olmedo is not overwhelming.

Regarding Rosewall's bad losses to Laver in 1968 I will say that Muscles himself said after his worst loss ever (winning one game in three sets at Wembley) that he had an off day. Would you (even as a Laver worshipper) believe that Laver generally was so much better than Rosewall? Surely not.

As you know Rosewall leads in his hth against Laver at majors and very often lost to the Rocket only with a narrow margine, at least in big matches like US Pro, Wembley, Masters, Dunlop Sydney.

I guess you will be totally satisfied only when I would admit that Laver, Gonzalez and Borg are miles above that little "thief" named Rosewall. I'm sorry but I can't give you that pleasure.....

First of all I admire Laver but I don't worship him and I find that comment that you made to be an amusing irony. I think I'm pretty reasonable where Laver stands in the history of tennis. No I do not think Gonzalez and Laver are miles ahead of Rosewall but they are imo clearly ahead. I've looked at the Rosewall career and Gonzalez career from all angles but it's just too one sided. There is no way I can rank Rosewall ahead or even close.

Your excuses for Rosewall make no logical sense.

I don't expect you to ever admit that Rosewall is not the GOAT but at least try to use some sensible logic in some of these comments.

Rosewall was a great player but you seem to indicate he only loses when he is off.

Here's my logic on the 1960 tour---Rosewall lost to Gonzalez because Gonzalez was the better player, even past Gonzalez's best with Pancho being age 32 and Rosewall at his peak at age 25, 26 by the end of the year. Very simple comment, very basic and I'm sure true.

BobbyOne · Aug 4, 2014

pc1 said:
First of all I admire Laver but I don't worship him and I find that comment that you made to be an amusing irony. I think I'm pretty reasonable where Laver stands in the history of tennis. No I do not think Gonzalez and Laver are miles ahead of Rosewall but they are imo clearly ahead. I've looked at the Rosewall career and Gonzalez career from all angles but it's just too one sided. They is no way I can rank Rosewall ahead or even close.

Your excuses for Rosewall make no logical sense.

I don't expect you to ever admit that Rosewall is not the GOAT but at least try to use some sensible logic in some of these comments.

Rosewall was a great player but you seem to indicate he only loses when he is off.

Here's my logic on the 1960 tour---Rosewall lost to Gonzalez because Gonzalez was the better player, even past Gonzalez's best with Pancho being age 32 and Rosewall at his peak at age 25, 26 by the end of the year. Very simple comment, very basic and I'm sure true.

pc1, Why again so unfriendly and unfair? Instead of supporting me against Angie's insults ( I would have supported you if you were insulted by her) you try to blame me for me tennis expertise. I also have looked of the R. and G. careers (maybe even longer than you did) and you will wonder: I came to a result which is different from your current view. One year ago you posted that "Rosewall is a super great GOAT candidate" (after I had listed up his feats). Please tell us which new discoveries you have made since and which additional results and records you have got!

Which excuses? Which non-sensible logic in my comments?

Of course Rosewall lost many matches when in form (as also Laver and Gonzalez did).

You ignore my serious arguments such as Rosewall had leading hth in 1959 and even hth in 1961.

Of course Gonzalez was better than Rosewall in that tour. Did I say otherwise??

Rosewall was NOT at his peak in early 1960.

I concede you are reasonable where Laver stands but you are not reasonable since a few months where Rosewall stands. That's your problem.

It's better to ignore you as long as you write so unfriendly.

Good bye

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

BobbyOne said:
pc1, Why again so unfriendly and unfair? Instead of supporting me against Angie's insults ( I would have supported you if you were insulted by her) you try to blame me for me tennis expertise. I also have looked of the R. and G. careers (maybe even longer than you did) and you will wonder: I came to a result which is different from your current view.

Who is Angie??

Dan L · Aug 4, 2014

BobbyOne said:
pc1, I don't see any wrong with my logic. Where is the problem?

Of course Gonzalez was much better than Segura and Olmedo, and his feat in that tour is admirable. I did not want to take away anything from Pancho. But it's a fact that it does not matter as much when you are a bit away from your peak form against lesser players than against a giant like Gonzalez or Laver.

Pancho was 32 at that tour and I would be astonished that he would have played better in the 1960s tour than in all other tours he played in his peak years. So I guess that Rosewall's form might have been slightly worse than usually. Remember that Muscles dominated Pancho in the previous year which fact is seldom mentioned. Also in other years Rosewall did usually better against Gonzalez than in 1960. F.i. in 1961 they were 2:2...

I also think that the constant change between normal play and 3 bounce rule in that tour could be an issue. Maybe Pancho handled that curious mixture better than Rosewall.

Rosewall's 28:10 record against old Segura and "excellent" Olmedo is not overwhelming.

Regarding Rosewall's bad losses to Laver in 1968 I will say that Muscles himself said after his worst loss ever (winning one game in three sets at Wembley) that he had an off day. Would you (even as a Laver worshipper) believe that Laver generally was so much better than Rosewall? Surely not.

As you know Rosewall leads in his hth against Laver at majors and very often lost to the Rocket only with a narrow margine, at least in big matches like US Pro, Wembley, Masters, Dunlop Sydney.

I guess you will be totally satisfied only when I would admit that Laver, Gonzalez and Borg are miles above that little "thief" named Rosewall. I'm sorry but I can't give you that pleasure.....

Bobby, you keep mixing apples with oranges, and your comparisons are wild.

Compare LIKE with LIKE to get valid results.

Rosewall did not "dominate" Gonzales in 1959.

On the Ampol/Qantas championship tour, Gonzales won four tournaments

and Rosewall won two.

Their hth on the tour was 3 to 1 for Rosewall, with Rosewall winning twice at

Brisbane and once at L.A. Masters (a tournament which Gonzales won),

while Gonzales won at White City.

Not a huge difference.

Their other matches were off-tour.

Carsomyr · Aug 4, 2014

Federer, 2004-08

Overall w/p: 90.7 percent (381-39)

Clay w/p: 85.7 percent (84-14)
Grass w/p: 98.1 percent (53-1)
Hard w/p: 91.0 percent (233-23)

Average calendar year record, overall: 76-8
Average calendar year, clay: 17-3
Average calendar year, grass: 11-0
Average calendar year, hard: 47-5

Titles: 46 (5 clay, 26 outdoor hard, 6 indoor hard, 1 carpet, 8 grass)
Finals: 59 (13 on clay, 28 on outdoor hard, 7 indoor hard, 2 carpet, 9 grass)

GS titles: 12 (0 RG, 4 Wimbledon, 3 AO, 5 US Open)
GS finals: 16 (3 RG, 5 Wimbledon, 3 AO, 5 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 12-4 (0-3 RG, 5-1 Wimbledon, 3-0 AO, 4-0 US Open)

MS 1000 titles: 13 (3 clay, 9 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 20 (8 clay, 10 outdoor hard, 2 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Winner, 3x (2004, 2006, 2007)

YE #1: 4 (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)
Weeks at #1: 237
Record vs. Top 10: 76-20 (79.2 percent)

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

Great information Carsomyr. A lot of work goes into that.

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

BobbyOne said:
Rosewall was NOT at his peak in early 1960s.

That's news to me considering his peak was probably 1959 to 1964 with his best years 1962 and 1963. His best five year period was 1960 to 1964 imo.

NatF · Aug 4, 2014

pc1 said:
That's news to me considering his peak was probably 1959 to 1964 with his best years 1962 and 1963. His best five year period was 1960 to 1964 imo.

Yes I find that very odd for Bobby to say as I've heard him excuse Rosewall losing the #1 spot to Laver because he was an old man.

Carsomyr · Aug 4, 2014

Federer, 2005-09

Overall w/p: 89.1 percent (368-45)

Clay w/p: 86.0 percent (86-14)
Grass w/p: 98.0 percent (48-1)
Hard w/p: 88.5 percent (223-29)

Average calendar year record, overall: 74-9
Average calendar year, clay: 17-3
Average calendar year, grass: 10-0
Average calendar year, hard: 45-6

Titles: 39 (5 clay, 21 outdoor hard, 5 indoor hard, 1 carpet, 7 grass)
Finals: 55 (13 on clay, 25 on outdoor hard, 7 indoor hard, 2 carpet, 8 grass)

GS titles: 11 (1 RG, 4 Wimbledon, 2 AO, 4 US Open)
GS finals: 17 (4 RG, 5 Wimbledon, 3 AO, 5 US Open)
Title round record, GS events: 11-6 (1-4 RG, 4-1 Wimbledon, 2-1 AO, 4-1 US Open)

MS 1000 titles: 12 (3 clay, 8 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard)
MS 1000 finals: 19 (8 clay, 9 outdoor hard, 2 indoor hard)

Best YEC results: Winner, 2x (2006, 2007)

YE #1: 4 (2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
Weeks at #1: 219
Record vs. Top 10: 73-31 (70.2 percent)

Carsomyr · Aug 4, 2014

NatF said:
Yes I find that very odd for Bobby to say as I've heard him excuse Rosewall losing the #1 spot to Laver because he was an old man.

Ken Rosewall an old man at 29-30? No way, that's when you're in your prime.

Carsomyr · Aug 4, 2014

Looking at the numbers, there's a clear regression the further we move Fed's peak away from 2003. However, it is interesting to note that his totals vs. top ten players goes up and, coincidentally or not, his winning % against them goes down. It goes back to the chicken/egg argument: did Federer decline or did the competition get stronger? I think it's clearly both, but I'm sure some will have strong opinions either way.

And although raw totals would go down in terms of most achievements, we could, for fun and games, say Federer's peak was 2006-2010 and his total matches against top ten players would increase again but without serious damage to his percentage (2005, he went 16-2 against top 10, and in 2010, 15-6).

Looked it over, and from 2006-2010, his % against top ten is 67.3%, and the latter half of this period is when the "Big Four" really started coming into their own. He'd still have 10 GS titles to his credit in this period, as well as 3 #1 finishes from the ages of 24-29, and it's still arguably more impressive than anything Nadal did in a stretch of five years, in my opinion.

NatF · Aug 4, 2014

Carsomyr said:
Ken Rosewall an old man at 29-30? No way, that's when you're in your prime.

That's the conundrum though isn't it. Rosewall was not in his peak in the early 60's but was past it by the mid 60's. Seems rather short.

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

NatF said:
That's the conundrum though isn't it. Rosewall was not in his peak in the early 60's but was past it by the mid 60's. Seems rather short.

I don't understand this new quantum tennis physics. I guess this has to be something about tennis tachyons. Perhaps it's something about the tennis multiverse. Do you think if I changed my grip I would understand this?

eldanger25 · Aug 4, 2014

pc1 said:
Borg won over 70 tournaments over five years. The ATP records are off by the way.

Interesting - they must be off for Connors too I imagine. Anywhere more reliable to look?

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

eldanger25 said:
Interesting - they must be off for Connors too I imagine. Anywhere more reliable to look?

I'm not sure if they have all of them but the ITF site is pretty good. Off the top of my head I think Connors won 59 tournaments in his best five year period.

pc1 · Aug 4, 2014

Carsomyr said:
Looking at the numbers, there's a clear regression the further we move Fed's peak away from 2003. However, it is interesting to note that his totals vs. top ten players goes up and, coincidentally or not, his winning % against them goes down. It goes back to the chicken/egg argument: did Federer decline or did the competition get stronger? I think it's clearly both, but I'm sure some will have strong opinions either way.

And although raw totals would go down in terms of most achievements, we could, for fun and games, say Federer's peak was 2006-2010 and his total matches against top ten players would increase again but without serious damage to his percentage (2005, he went 16-2 against top 10, and in 2010, 15-6).

Looked it over, and from 2006-2010, his % against top ten is 67.3%, and the latter half of this period is when the "Big Four" really started coming into their own. He'd still have 10 GS titles to his credit in this period, as well as 3 #1 finishes from the ages of 24-29, and it's still arguably more impressive than anything Nadal did in a stretch of five years, in my opinion.

So the big question is this, how did the other members of the big four affect Federer's numbers? Perhaps we should check from 2009 onward or so. Check the numbers against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in regular tournaments and majors. Then check his numbers without them involved in the equation. Aging of course is a major component is this.

Peak Level over Five Years

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads