tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Baghdatis improves further.. 14/7
Yannick Noah played 121 grand slam matches and had 50 five setters ?
Yannick Noah played 121 grand slam matches and had 50 five setters ?
ATP 5-set Records (five set)
- Thread starter Bud
- Start date
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
You were going pretty good for the first half of this, up to "set takes match" scenarios, but the second half you just lost it altogether. The not so subtle dig at Roddick is certifiably stupid, and no match that someone wins in 5 sets can be a shot against their legacy. Then the Agassi part and the linking with Federer about strength of draws is unnecessary, especially considering Federer beat Agassi in a 5 setter at the USO of all places.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
pame!
noah's 50 five-setters:
- 29 in grand slam
- 10 in davis cup
- 3 in bo5 finals of "regular tournaments"
- 8 in key biscayne (when they had bo5 matches in all the rounds)
Adv. Edberg
Legend
ScottleeSV
Hall of Fame
I wonder what his five set record was before he turned, say, 28. I expect him to lose almost every five setter these days, no matter who he's playing (see Gulbis last year). He needs to win matches in 3 or 4 sets.
Tenez!
Professional
It's all in the thread.
He was 20-16 right after RG'10, he's now 23-19. That's 3-3 since turning 29.
I won't be calling on you for wagers.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Querrey is 3-10 : 23%
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
A triflingly small matter, but I think Connors had a 27th 5 set victory in a '75 DC rubber versus Mexico (see http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=JimmyConnors&f=ACareerqqP5). So he's at 27-17 (if you count the Chang match)
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Please return to the forum, as you are sorely missed. Come back to us...
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
5-set record of all players with five or more slams in the Open Era (click on their records for a detailed breakdown):
Borg: 27-6 (81.8%)
Djokovic: 37-10 (78.7%)
Laver: 30-10 (75.0%)
Sampras: 33-15 (68.8%)
Becker: 32-15 (68.1%)
Nadal: 26-13 (66.7%)
Wilander: 26-14 (65.0%)
Connors: 27-15 (64.3%)
McEnroe: 25-14 (64.1%)
Newcombe: 29-16 (64.4%)
Lendl: 35-22 (61.4%)
Federer: 32-23 (58.2%)
Edberg: 26-19 (57.8%)
Agassi: 27-21 (56.2%)
Last update: 2022 Wimbledon
Borg: 27-6 (81.8%)
Djokovic: 37-10 (78.7%)
Laver: 30-10 (75.0%)
Sampras: 33-15 (68.8%)
Becker: 32-15 (68.1%)
Nadal: 26-13 (66.7%)
Wilander: 26-14 (65.0%)
Connors: 27-15 (64.3%)
McEnroe: 25-14 (64.1%)
Newcombe: 29-16 (64.4%)
Lendl: 35-22 (61.4%)
Federer: 32-23 (58.2%)
Edberg: 26-19 (57.8%)
Agassi: 27-21 (56.2%)
Last update: 2022 Wimbledon
Last edited:
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Unbelievable Borg.
Sampras too when we know he had a stamina (genetic) problem.
Sampras too when we know he had a stamina (genetic) problem.
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
Professional
Federer Safin 2005 AO semi.
Federer Hewitt Davis Cup 2003 (whether Federer was peak/prime is up for debate).
Roddick was Federer's fave pigeon and a big part in Fed's weak era. Being taken to 5 against Roddick on his "home" court with all the support does not look good. In fact he really should have lost that match if not for that 2nd set TB choke from Roddick (BH volley miss will forever haut him).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Maybe Roddick just played a Hell of a match? Roddick played some fantastic tennis, better than he ever did before, it's no shame it took Federer 5 sets to put him away. I don't know if your fave Djoko or Nadal could put Roddick away in the same form.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And "weak era"? Hahaha.. Coming from a Djoko-fanboi extraordinaire, that's a joke.
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
Professional
Roddick's hell of a match may equal to only Federer's above average match. If Federer played at his level against Nadal in the final last year, or even at his level in all the other Wimbledon finals he straight-settled Roddick, he would have won much easier.
Who said I was his fanboy? And if you read my posts, I already acknowledged Djokovic is now dominating a weak era this year too, so stfu.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
Professional
Are you my disputing the claims of weak era for Djokovic this year?
Nadal: washed up
Murray: not as good when Lendl was his coach
Federer: 34, can't be expected to perform as well physically and mentally.
Stan: so hot and cold, hot during Slams, cold mostly everywhere else. And it's not guarantee he's hot for the Slams.
Dimitrov, Raonic and Nishikori: how disappointing they have been. Dimitrov and Raonic have had very poor years after a good 2014. Nishikori struggles to stay fit and his level may be regressing.
Berdych: strong start to the year but his level has dropped since then. At 30, his best may be behind him.
Ferrer: 33, every aspect of his game is inferior to Djokovic's (Djokovic Lite). As this year shows again, keeps his ranking in the top 10 by playing lots of tournaments against weaker opposition (nothing wrong with that, just stating a fact).
Coric, Kokkinakis, Thiem and Kyrgios: their time as not come yet and have not reached the level and sustained effort to make the breakthrough.
So there you go. Djokovic's competition in 2015.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I am saying that the weak era argument (for Djokovic, Federer, or anyone) is, from a logical standpoint, not on.
However good/bad Baghdatis or Berdych or whoever is, you can only beat who is put in front of you.
I don't disagree with any of your analyses of the players by the way, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter.
Livedeath
Professional
ATP 5th set records, top 50 players. (Criteria: at least 1 grand slam)
Rank Name Won Lost Win %
1 Johan Kriek 18 4 81.82
2 Bjorn Borg 24 6 80.00
3 Novak Djokovic 25 8 75.76
4 Rafael Nadal 17 6 73.91
5 Rod Laver 29 11 72.50
6 Andy Murray 18 7 72.00
7 Marin Cilic 23 9 71.88
8 Pete Sampras 33 15 68.75
9 Marat Safin 28 13 68.29
10 Boris Becker 32 15 68.09
11 John Newcombe 32 15 68.09
12 Mats Wilander 26 13 66.67
13 Thomas Muster 18 9 66.67
14 Ilie Nastase 37 19 66.07
15 John McEnroe 25 13 65.79
16 Manuel Orantes 17 9 65.38
17 Goran Ivanisevic 26 14 65.00
18 Yevgeny Kafelnikov 20 11 64.52
19 Patrick Rafter 14 8 63.64
20 Andres Gomez 19 11 63.33
21 Ivan Lendl 36 21 63.16
22 Ken Rosewell 22 13 62.86
23 Jimmy Connors 26 17 60.47
24 Yannick Noah 29 19 60.42
25 Michael Chang 22 15 59.46
26 Guillermo Vilas 29 20 59.18
27 Gustavo Kuerten 17 12 58.62
28 Lleyton Hewitt 32 25 56.14
29 Stefan Edberg 26 19 57.78
30 Juan Carlos Ferrero 24 18 57.14
31 Arthur Ashe 20 15 57.14
32 Sergi Bruguera 13 10 56.52
33 Jim Courier 19 15 55.88
34 Vitas Gerulaitis 21 17 55.26
35 Andre Agassi 27 22 55.10
36 Stanislas Wawrinka 22 18 55.00
37 Roger Federer 23 19 54.76
38 Richard Krajicek 15 13 53.57
39 Roscoe Tanner 16 14 53.33
40 Jan Kodes 25 22 53.19
41 Petr Korda 14 13 51.85
42 Stan Smith 15 15 50.00
43 Adriano Panatta 14 14 50.00
44 Carlos Moya 17 19 47.22
45 Brian Teacher 7 8 46.67
46 Andy Roddick 13 16 44.83
47 Michael Stich 13 16 44.83
48 Albert Costa 10 13 43.48
49 Andrés Gimeno 7 12 36.84
50 Juan Martin Del Potro 4 9 30.77
There is something wrong with spacing of the words, i cant correct it even after setting it right and again copying from notepad
Rank Name Won Lost Win %
1 Johan Kriek 18 4 81.82
2 Bjorn Borg 24 6 80.00
3 Novak Djokovic 25 8 75.76
4 Rafael Nadal 17 6 73.91
5 Rod Laver 29 11 72.50
6 Andy Murray 18 7 72.00
7 Marin Cilic 23 9 71.88
8 Pete Sampras 33 15 68.75
9 Marat Safin 28 13 68.29
10 Boris Becker 32 15 68.09
11 John Newcombe 32 15 68.09
12 Mats Wilander 26 13 66.67
13 Thomas Muster 18 9 66.67
14 Ilie Nastase 37 19 66.07
15 John McEnroe 25 13 65.79
16 Manuel Orantes 17 9 65.38
17 Goran Ivanisevic 26 14 65.00
18 Yevgeny Kafelnikov 20 11 64.52
19 Patrick Rafter 14 8 63.64
20 Andres Gomez 19 11 63.33
21 Ivan Lendl 36 21 63.16
22 Ken Rosewell 22 13 62.86
23 Jimmy Connors 26 17 60.47
24 Yannick Noah 29 19 60.42
25 Michael Chang 22 15 59.46
26 Guillermo Vilas 29 20 59.18
27 Gustavo Kuerten 17 12 58.62
28 Lleyton Hewitt 32 25 56.14
29 Stefan Edberg 26 19 57.78
30 Juan Carlos Ferrero 24 18 57.14
31 Arthur Ashe 20 15 57.14
32 Sergi Bruguera 13 10 56.52
33 Jim Courier 19 15 55.88
34 Vitas Gerulaitis 21 17 55.26
35 Andre Agassi 27 22 55.10
36 Stanislas Wawrinka 22 18 55.00
37 Roger Federer 23 19 54.76
38 Richard Krajicek 15 13 53.57
39 Roscoe Tanner 16 14 53.33
40 Jan Kodes 25 22 53.19
41 Petr Korda 14 13 51.85
42 Stan Smith 15 15 50.00
43 Adriano Panatta 14 14 50.00
44 Carlos Moya 17 19 47.22
45 Brian Teacher 7 8 46.67
46 Andy Roddick 13 16 44.83
47 Michael Stich 13 16 44.83
48 Albert Costa 10 13 43.48
49 Andrés Gimeno 7 12 36.84
50 Juan Martin Del Potro 4 9 30.77
There is something wrong with spacing of the words, i cant correct it even after setting it right and again copying from notepad
Last edited:
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
Professional
Yes Djokovic has played at a fantastic level all year and you can only beat who is in front of you... But whenever people are gonna start talking about GOAT, who has the best year ever, who's peak was strongest, etc... There should always be an asterisk next to these weak era years.
And the reason the weak era notion applies here is because, would Djokovic have won 3 Grand Slams, 5 Masters (could be 6 and can also get WTF) against noticeably stronger opponents. Unlikely.
This shows in 2012 where imho, this was the year the big 4 were all closest to their peaks. The Grand Slam titles won were also split between 4 different players (the big 4 funnily enough) and the last time this was done on the ATP was in 2003.
Context is important.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Not a surprising stat, really
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Guess this means Ninja was the mentally strongest player on tour back then.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Based on your own analysis, though, Djoker finished the year at #1 that year, reaching 3/4 finals(losing in the semi to eventual champion at SW19). That's still better than any of the other 3.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Why is Federer ahead of Wawrinka here?
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
for commercial purpose
Livedeath
Professional
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Also an incredible record for Laver considering he turned 30 in 1968. So his record starts way older than Borg's age at the time he quit.
Borg was a machine at his peak. In that time period he had no weaknesses, because in the end his serve and net play were at least adequate, and he could not be beat from the baseline. I think he was actually a lot like an earlier version of Novak combined with Nadal.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
such an impressive 5 set record from Borg. A microcosm example of that was how he managed to regroup and win wimbledon vs Mac after losing that 4th set tiebreak.
To be exact, Laver's record starts from 1956. Not exactly entirely Open era record.
For most of his career, I think 3 slams were on grass and average point length was 2-3.
And yeah, Borg's record on consecutive French Open and Wimbledon is unique.
When the grass court was real grass court. It's mind-boggling.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
But I did not refer to any stats pre-1968. Most likely he was an even better player before the open era, but we didn't get to see those matches
My point was that starting in 1968 the pros were on a higher level than all other players, and in the last few years the top three or four were also on a higher level. That is clear right now, when an aging Fed is #3, at the worst, where former #4 is now #2, and where the other players who are challenging the top are around age 30 or older.
Let me make myself clear: I am bored to tears at what is happening now. We are experiencing a true low point in tennis. This has NOTHING to do with Novak. It has everything to do with his competition, which is pathetic.
I think that is an exaggeration, but for sure points were shorter when players were playing with wooden rackets with gut strings. If you look at videos from that time the rackets look tiny. You have to wonder how they hit anything with those tiny rackets. But for people like me, the "old timers", that's what we played with.
Young people can't understand that fact. They never tried to hit a return or serve with the old wooden rackets. The game has not changed much. The EQUIPMENT has totally changed.
How many young people can even wrap their heads around a racket press?
Again, looking at the old rackets and the old short-shorts, made worse by horrible videos, how can anyone get a sense of how easily Borg moved? The fact that he had a clay court style that was Nadal-like and yet won Wimbledon five times in a row, when the two surfaces were totally different, is insane!
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
Professional
I dunno what yore saying. Yes Djokovic finished no.1 in 2012 bit that was a result of more consistentency over the season, not dominance like this year.
Got it but I think most of Laver's records are made when 3 slams were on grasses.
I do not have clear proof but have suspicion on current ATP system and homogeneously slow surfaces.
18 best results with no bonus points/ densely seeded tournament draw system.
I think these are more protected of seeded (top) players and they hang around longer in this environment.
I think 80s-90s were uniquely diversified competition with 4 different slam surfaces.
I think that's why top count was 14 slams of Sampras during 80s- 90s.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That's true, but I have made the point before that Laver and his friends built up their match toughness playing on any surface we can think of. They were pros, the scrambled to make money. It was a unique competitive environment. And they were continually playing the best in the world, match after match. I would be a bit like taking the top 5 players or so right now and having them compete continually against each other, under any conditions.
I agree. The system favors those at the top. I think that's obvious. When you look at the people who travel with the top players, you almost have to laugh. They travel easily. They are surrounded by their team. This whole idea of having a team with you at every moment is not old. Everything favors the players at the top now, which means it is much harder to get there and then it's harder to get knocked back down.
For sure things are very different now.
Where are you getting a 4th surface from?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
somebody better put him back into his place
Grass, Clay, fast hard courts(US Open), slow bouncy hard courts(Australian, Rebound Ace).
If I can add true carpets, that's 5.
In that sense, Agassi's career slam(and WTF on carpet) is unique in tennis history.
And as I recall, there was bonus points, best of 9 results(plus 4 slam results) in 90's.
Slams used to be 18 seeds on highly polarized surfaces in 90s.(now 32 seeds)
That produced quite a few early round exits of top seeds...
Teenagers could stack up ranking points quickly and challenge top players rather quickly, IMHO.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I can't agree with you about HCs being two surfaces since it is well known that long ago the way grass played at different slams was radically different. In fact, there is probably more difference on grass than any other surface as grass completely changes over two weeks.Grass, Clay, fast hard courts(US Open), slow bouncy hard courts(Australian, Rebound Ace).
If I can add true carpets, that's 5.
In that sense, Agassi's career slam(and WTF on carpet) is unique in tennis history.
And as I recall, there was bonus points, best of 9 results(plus 4 slam results) in 90's.
Slams used to be 18 seeds on highly polarized surfaces in 90s.(now 32 seeds)
That produced quite a few early round exits of top seeds...
Teenagers could stack up ranking points quickly and challenge top players rather quickly, IMHO.
But for sure I'd agree about carpet. However, since slams don't happen on carpet we'd to talk either about more minor tournaments or earlier times when Bo5 happened on that surface.
The WTF on carpet is a good argument for a dominant year though!
I know nothing about how points were stacked up in the past, but I'm quite ready to agree with you about tennis protecting players at the top now. Changing from 18 to 32 seeds really stacks the deck against exciting upsets.
I agree that grass courts can be very different.
I also agree that 2nd week of Wimbledon is very different from 1st day.
Note that they now pack soils much more densely underneath grass layer(so that some people even say Wimbledon becomes clay court by end of 2nd week !
)But point is that hard courts used to be much more different than current differences.
I guess current tour is the most homogenized ever then !
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I can't say how much HCs have changed in terms of being different from each other in the same era. In other words, decades ago were there huge differences from one HC to another? I don't remember big differences at the time I learned to play, long ago.I agree that grass courts can be very different.
I also agree that 2nd week of Wimbledon is very different from 1st day.
Note that they now pack soils much more densely underneath grass layer(so that some people even say Wimbledon becomes clay court by end of 2nd week !
But point is that hard courts used to be much more different than current differences.
I guess current tour is the most homogenized ever then !
But so many other things have changed. I'm trying to get used to seeing players slide on HCs. Obviously that is not about technique but different shoes.
Then there are the strings. I don't have personal experience with these strings, but my eyes tell me that average shots today were impossible back in the era of wood rackets. The amount of spin and the angles are insane. I often wonder how ANYONE today gets to the net.
I suppose the bottom line is that what Laver did in 69 may never be done again. And yet when we see how many times Fed almost got a CYGS, only to lose in finals to Nadal, and how the same thing happened to Novak this year, or how Nadal only failed to get the AO in 2010, maybe it's a run of bad luck for players in this era!
After all, if you have guys winning 3 slams more and more often, it just seems like it's only a matter of time before someone gets 4 in a row. And I do believe making all the surfaces more alike is driving this trend.
Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal or Djokovic getting 15+ slams, even nearing or exceeding Federer's 17.
Maybe not Nishikori-Raonic generation.
But won't be surprised if Thiem-Coric (or future) generation reaching high teen slams or near 20.
Of course, if current tour condition/system does not change in the future.
sportsfan1
Legend
Is Fed now 24-20 in 5 set matches?
xFedal
Legend
Yes!!
The Dark Knight
Legend
Nadal is the modern day Borg in my opinion.
The Dark Knight
Legend
You certainly are entitled to your opinion but I disagree .
When Sampras retired there was a vacuum in the top 10 ....roddick was number one and some Spanish guy also was number one ....I forgot his name ....was it ferrer ?
The Roddick Federer rivalry was the hottest rivalry there was .....If you want to even call that a rivalry as roddick was completely dominated .
It was filled with journeymen like Blake and Henman.
It was a weak era in my opinion ....and it makes perfect sense .
Clearly not all eras are exactly equal . The period following Sampras retirement was in my opinion a weaker era than others.
