Federer's 2004, '05 & '06: the best three-year performance in tennis history?

[chaognosis]

Just curious how you all see Federer's recent accomplishments relative to those of past greats over a similar timeframe. In my own view:

1. Don Budge [1937-39] - Won Wimbledon, US Open in 1937 and led US to legendary Davis Cup victory over Germany and Von Cramm (SF); topped himself in '38 by winning first-ever Grand Slam; won the Wimbledon singles, doubles, and mixed doubles in two straight years, one of the greatest records in tennis; turned pro in '39 and defeated both of the top two pros, Vines and Perry, in head-to-head series

2. Roger Federer [2004-06] - Extraordinary level of achievement marked by 11+ titles each season, including a total eight majors, losing an average of only five matches per year; unprecedented three-peat victories at Wimbledon and US Open

3. Rod Laver [1967-69] - Utterly dominant on pro tour in 1967, winning all the major pro events; won first Open Wimbledon and finished No. 1 in '68; crowning achievement of career in '69, accomplishing only male Grand Slam of Open Era

4. Bill Tilden [1923-25] - Did not lose a single important match, winning the US Championships each year and leading the United States Davis Cup team to victory; in 1925, won an astonishing 57 straight games

5. Jack Kramer [1947-49] - In 1947, defended US Open crown and lost the fewest games in history on route to Wimbledon title; lost only three matches in two years, finishing amateur career with 41-match win streak; turned pro in late '47 and definitively toppled reigning king Riggs in '48; began long tour in '49 where he utterly destroyed young Gonzales

6. Bjorn Borg [1978-80] - Almost inconceivable feat of winning French Open and Wimbledon three times back-to-back; finished No. 1 in 1979 and '80; epic battles with McEnroe in Wimbledon and US Open finals

7. Fred Perry [1934-36] - In one of the all-time great stretches of the amateur era, won seven matches in three years; after loss at the French Championships prevented a Grand Slam in '34, rebounded in '35 by winning the difficult French-Wimbledon double; became first man to win Wimbledon in three consecutive years since the abolition of the Challenge Round, a feat not duplicated until Borg's five straight

8. Pete Sampras [1993-95] - Finished No. 1 first three times in a stretch of six consecutive years, winning two majors (including Wimbledon) each season and a total 23 titles

9. Pancho Gonzales [1956-58] - Peak of stranglehold over pros in the 1950s, winning the US Pro Championships each year and withstanding charge by Australians Sedgman ('56), Rosewall ('57), and Hoad ('58 ); during these years, firmly established himself as, in Hoad's words, "the greatest player of our time"

10. Ken Rosewall [1962-64] - Three most dominant years on the pro tour, capturing seven of eight biggest tournaments in 1962; swept pro majors in '63; finished No. 1 (narrowly) ahead of Laver in '64, winning French Pro

11. Jimmy Connors [1974-76] - Won three majors in 1974 and reached three finals in '75, reclaiming US Open crown in '76 (thus winning US Open on both grass and clay during these years); finished No. 1 each season, winning an outstanding 14 ATP titles in '74, 9 in '75, and 12 in '76

12. Ivan Lendl [1985-87] - Dominant stretch highlighted by 28 titles, including five majors, also winning year-end Masters each season; finished No. 1 each year; three consecutive US Open victories as part of incredible eight straight final appearances

 

[shrakkie]

roger certainly deserves his place among the greats.only time will tell if he will surface at the top.its far to early in his career to say where he will stand in comparison to borg or sampras.but so far so good(ok very very good!!)

 

[Zuras]

1. Federer
2. Borg<--- his own fault for not playing all the major events
3. Laver
4. Lendl


Unfortunately, it's hard to say much about pre-Laver tennis players. Laver and maybe Lendl would move up if you had said "two years".

 

[capriatifanatic]

Counting just the open era definitely the best 3-year period ever. Looking at years before harder to say.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Counting just the open era definitely the best 3-year period ever. Looking at years before harder to say.

Borg won 6 of 9 majors played from '78-'80(66 win%)

Federer won 8 of 12 majors played from '04-'06(66 win%)

Too bad the "Marlboro Australian Open" wasn't really considered a major in those days.

 

[chaognosis]

Borg won 6 of 9 majors played from '78-'80(66 win%)

Federer won 8 of 12 majors played from '04-'06(66 win%)

Too bad the "Marlboro Australian Open" wasn't really considered a major in those days.

Though I agree with you in principle -- the Australian was definitely not held in the same regard as the French Open, much less Wimbledon and the US Open -- the Australian was still 1/4 of the Grand Slam. Three times Borg made it halfway to the Grand Slam, failing each time to win the third leg in the US. If he had won the US Open any one of those years, I guarantee he would have competed in Australia for his shot at history. (On this topic, if we're considering the Australian not a "real" major in the 1970s, I do feel we also have to put an asterix next to the French, which was certainly not as important as Wimbledon or the US; this would, of course, significantly lessen the prestige of Borg's resume.)

 

[jhhachamp]

If Federer keeps this pace up for another year or two, where does that rate him in terms of the best 4 year or best 5 year span? I don't see him slowing down next year, he was more dominant than ever this year.

 

[AJK1]

If Borg had have won a US, and maybe an OZ i would have thought he was GOAT. But he didn't. I really thought he would have won the US, considering his dominance at the time?

 

[urban]

Good list chaognosis. Pre open era, its sometimes difficult wo weight the performances of amateurs or pros respectively. As amateur Perry had three great years 34-36, i think 8 majors equal to Federer (but all majors), but without Vines, who was pro since 33. For the pro tour, there were no official rankings and complete records, making it difficult in some years to get a clear picture. Gonzales had his best years in that time, end of the 50s. Some say (and have not too bad arguments), that Sedgman was in fact the Nr.1 pro in 58.The 1964 status of Rosewall his higly disputable, because Laver won the two biggies US pro, Wembley, more titles (11 to 10) and had a 12-3 head to head over Rosewall. Tough call.

 

[urban]

In 1958 for example, is the question how do you rate the series of head to head matches between two attractive players, which Gonzales won over Hoad, against the tournament series of all pro players, where Sedgman indeed had a slight advantage over Gonzales, winning Wembley pro and Australian pro, both beating Gonzales in best of 5 matches. The pro themselves regarded probably Gonzales as their king but regarding the results, its sometimes very complex, and difficult to revaluate.

 

[Grimjack]

Though I agree with you in principle -- the Australian was definitely not held in the same regard as the French Open, much less Wimbledon and the US Open -- the Australian was still 1/4 of the Grand Slam. Three times Borg made it halfway to the Grand Slam, failing each time to win the third leg in the US. If he had won the US Open any one of those years, I guarantee he would have competed in Australia for his shot at history. (On this topic, if we're considering the Australian not a "real" major in the 1970s, I do feel we also have to put an asterix next to the French, which was certainly not as important as Wimbledon or the US; this would, of course, significantly lessen the prestige of Borg's resume.)

The prestige factor may have been lessened, but not the difficulty factor. All depends what you look for in greatness, I suppose. (Not saying I think Borg was necessarily the greatest, but I see the argument, especially coming from somebody with tennis knowledge and understanding of what an incomparable achievement Borg's triple-double really was.)

 

[chaognosis]

I have heavily revised this list, in light of more reading and very fruitful discussion on this board. Though I can see different arguments for the order, especially in the bottom half, I am fairly confident in the twelve players and "periods" chosen. I do think Budge firmly deserves the No. 1 spot, after studying his conquests in 1937-38, and the way he ascended to the top of the pro ranks so quickly in '39. Though I had trouble dropping Laver to No. 3, I do think Federer has probably maintained a higher level of play even than Laver, 365 days a year, though Laver's Open Grand Slam remains an important benchmark. I previously overrated Sampras, Connors, and Lendl, and badly underrated Kramer, who was nearly invincible at his peak in the late '40s. Thanks to urban for pointing out Perry's omission -- definitely an oversight. Hope you enjoy.

 

[chaognosis]

I also have to revise my last response to Grimjack, after seeing a survey of players from 1989, which rated the French Open as the second most prestigious major after Wimbledon. (Source: Tennis Week)

 

[whistleway]

Super duper great list. Thanks for compiling. Though many would argue the relative rankings, it is a great reference list for sure.

 

[The Gorilla]

lendl waas definitely better than connors, just a much better player.

 

[FiveO]

Borg's 3 RG/W doubles are incredible, so was his lost matches count in that 3 year period. 21.

I know for a fact that Laver and Sampras didn't approach that number but I don't know if Lendl or perhaps someone else on that list did.

Federer had 15 losses in his three year span. 15. 5 losses per year. Even Borg averaged 7. That number, is what boggles the mind. He paces himself but wins just short of everything he enters. Big events, small ones, everything. As much as he rules the majors he rules the smaller events. Alot of what Fed is doing is confounding, but that little factoid is disconcerting, even when looking at the greats and their greatest runs listed here.

 

[Sagittar]

lendl waas definitely better than connors, just a much better player.

i agree with that completly ..
and roger is on hiw was to become the best ever ..

 

[chaognosis]

lendl waas definitely better than connors, just a much better player.

The head-to-head record is skewed, because half of their matches came during Lendl's best years, when Connors was well past his prime. Connors dominated Lendl until about 1984, when the tables turned decidedly. The strongest evidence against you, I think, are the two US Open finals in '82 and '83 where Connors decisively defeated Lendl. In comparing their best three years, Lendl indeed has one more major title, but Connors has many more titles overall, an incredible number -- 36 according to Bud Collins's encyclopedia! Connors also reached the finals in all but one of the majors he entered, an almost Federer-like feat. I think overall, he had a slightly better three-year peak, though I see your argument too. I would have no trouble considering it a tie at #11.

 

[The Gorilla]

The head-to-head record is skewed, because half of their matches came during Lendl's best years, when Connors was well past his prime. Connors dominated Lendl until about 1984, when the tables turned decidedly. The strongest evidence against you, I think, are the two US Open finals in '82 and '83 where Connors decisively defeated Lendl. In comparing their best three years, Lendl indeed has one more major title, but Connors has many more titles overall, an incredible number -- 36 according to Bud Collins's encyclopedia! Connors also reached the finals in all but one of the majors he entered, an almost Federer-like feat. I think overall, he had a slightly better three-year peak, though I see your argument too. I would have no trouble considering it a tie at #11.

connors beat lendl in front of a packed us open crowd, lendl had a fairly low gs count, not unlike connors, but absolutely dominated every other tournament he played.He was as dominant as connors , but for a longer period of time, playing far higher quality tennis and against higher quality opponents.

Connors's dominance came at a time when the game was inbetween 2 generations and connors, an extremely good player granted, just so happened to reach his prime before other, superior players reached there's, such as Mcenroe and Borg.

When judging connors one has to remember that he won 2 of his gs finals against a player who was in his early forties.This reflected the longer than usual gap of time between the 2 generations.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

I suspect Federer's 2004 will be replaced by an even better 2006 as his 3 year run. I dont see him losing in the 3rd round of the French Open like he did in 2004, when he was still a bit clueless on clay. This year he will either be runner up or Champion of the French. He will win Wimbledon and the U.S Open as he did in 2004. He will end up with a better match record then his 73-6 of 2004.

 

[stormholloway]

I wasn't aware that the French was ever a lesser major than the other two back then. The US Open was always changing surfaces. I would consider it the lesser back then.

 

[chaognosis]

I wasn't aware that the French was ever a lesser major than the other two back then. The US Open was always changing surfaces. I would consider it the lesser back then.

I think "old timers" always felt that Wimbledon and the US Open were the two greatest events in tennis. Jack Kramer, in his autobiography (1979), at least felt this way. But as I replied earlier, there is evidence that the players had changed their minds about by the late '80s, perhaps for the reason you give, though I think Borg's feats there had a lot to do with it as well. In any case, it largely has to do with whom you ask. For American fans, the US Open has always been considered the bigger tournament, whereas players who grow up on clay courts dream about Roland Garros glory. Certainly the best would be to win both, with Wimbledon, something very few have done!

 

[Moose Malloy]

I wasn't aware that the French was ever a lesser major than the other two back then.

Chris Evert & Bjorn Borg, the 2 best claycourters of alltime, both skipped the French one or 2 years during their prime years to play WTT. No top player ever skipped US Open in the 70s. That should tell you how far behind the US Open the French was in the 70s.

The French took a while to build interest with fans & players. Ditto Australia. Don't underestimate how improved facilities, stadiums, & prize money dictates the calibur of players that show up to an event. was watching an Australian Open match from 1985, Mac was put on the 2nd show court, I couldn't believe how small the court was(fans were sitting on a grassy hill next to the court) It looked like a challenger, not a slam(Mac & Lendl, among others, were very critical of the Australian Open courts/facilities. Multi-millionaires like to be treated a little bit better)
Not a coincidence once they built a new stadium & a new venue, top players started showing up. Ditto the French, they overhauled the event in the early 80s.

 

[Jet Rink]

Chaognosis: I nominate you for TT Historian (that pic certainly doesn't hurt either).

I just hope you're not taking time away from work to do all this.

And yes - I concur that we may have seen the best three-year stretch of men's pro tennis ever - based on winning percentage. It remains really tough for me to believe anybody will supplant Borg's run.

Jet