Grand Slam Titles by Age - ATG 3

[titoelcolombiano]

Last Updated: 6/6/22

What I mean by age in this thread is the year that they turned that age:

Age 19:
Rafa 1
Fed 0
Djoker 0

Age 20:
Rafa 2
Fed 0
Djoker 0

Age 21:
Rafa 3
Djoker 1
Fed 0

Age 22:
Rafa 5
Djoker 1
Fed 1

Age 23:
Rafa 6
Fed 4
Djoker 1

Age 24:
Rafa 9
Fed 6
Djoker 4

Age 25:
Rafa 10
Fed 9
Djoker 5

Age 26:
Fed 12
Rafa 11
Djoker 6

Age 27:
Fed 13
Rafa 13
Djoker 7

Age 28:
Fed 15
Rafa 14
Djoker 10

Age 29:
Fed 16
Rafa 14
Djoker 12

Age 30:
Fed 16
Rafa 14
Djoker 12

Age 31:
Fed 17
Rafa 16
Djoker 14

Age 32:
Fed 17 (2013)
Rafa 17 (2018)
Djoker 16 (2019)

Age 33:
Rafa 19 (2019)
Fed 17 (2014)
Djoker 17 (2020)

Age 34:
Rafa 20 (2020)
Djoker 20 (2021)
Fed 17 (2015)

Age 35:
Rafa 20 (2021)
Djoker 20 (2022) - two slams to go this year
Fed 17 (2016)

Age 36:
Rafa 22 (2022) - two slams to go this year
Djoker ?? (2023)
Fed 19 (2017)

Age 37:
Rafa ?? (2023)
Djoker ?? (2024)
Fed 20 (2018)

I'll update as we go

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

These facts show just how close Rafa is to Fed if we put them at the same age. 17-16 is not a very big lead.

What most people miss though is Rafa actually had a huge lead until age 25, after which Fed catches up and takes the lead to date. This is mostly because Fed regularly lost early when he was very young (before 22) while Rafa was one of the greatest teenage prodigies the sport had seen.

Roger makes up for this as he continues to win Slams into his 30's, which Rafa will have to match if he wants to keep the race close. It's not unreasonable for Rafa to take the lead soon, given the field, and as Fed didn't win anything from 32-34.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

These facts show just how close Rafa is to Fed if we put them at the same age. 17-16 is not a very big lead.

What most people miss though is Rafa actually had a huge lead until age 25, after which Fed catches up and takes the lead to date. This is mostly because Fed regularly lost early when he was very young (before 22) while Rafa was one of the greatest teenage prodigies the sport had seen.

Roger makes up for this as he continues to win Slams into his 30's, which Rafa will have to match if he wants to keep the race close. It's not unreasonable for Rafa to take the lead soon, given the field, and as Fed didn't win anything from 32-34.

I find this a really cool stat. Notice that all three at age 29 & 30 had off-years, it is fascinating. Djoker was actually catching up quite quickly too before his recent issues.

 

[merwy]

Why stop at age 31 though? Or was Nadal the main focus of your post?

 

[Plamen1234]

Nadal on 22 had 4 more GS than Federer when he was 22.On 31 had less one than Federer had on 31.Nadal blew his advantage.Novak in the years of 2012-2014 could have won more GS and which would have put him into the Slam race.So Novak also wasted his chances

 

[MichaelNadal]

Why stop at age 31 though? Or was Nadal the main focus of your post?

Bc Nadal is epic

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Fed made up for lost time.

 

[ForumMember]

Fed made up for lost time.

He fortunately found another weak era. Never misses out on those.

 

[Plamen1234]

These facts show just how close Rafa is to Fed if we put them at the same age. 17-16 is not a very big lead.

What most people miss though is Rafa actually had a huge lead until age 25, after which Fed catches up and takes the lead to date. This is mostly because Fed regularly lost early when he was very young (before 22) while Rafa was one of the greatest teenage prodigies the sport had seen.

Roger makes up for this as he continues to win Slams into his 30's, which Rafa will have to match if he wants to keep the race close. It's not unreasonable for Rafa to take the lead soon, given the field, and as Fed didn't win anything from 32-34.

The thing with Nadal is that he is beast on clay but on the other surfaces he is just good nothing more.If he was so good on HC he would have reached Federer GS record years ago.Unfortunately for Nadal there is only one GS on clay.Federer from February of 2010 to the early 2017 won only 2 GS.In this period Nadal had chances to reach him but failed.

 

[Fedforever]

Nadal blew his advantage

It's interesting if you listen to the commentary after the end of the AO 09 Final the commentators are pretty much assuming that Fed is finished and Nadal will be overtaking all the records in a few years. And yet Fed won three more slams before Nadal won another. Shows we should never take anything for granted.

 

[Tennisgods]

He fortunately found another weak era. Never misses out on those.

Rafa found weak surface. Never misses out on that.

10 and counting - next best slam haul - 3!!!

 

[Plamen1234]

It's interesting if you listen to the commentary after the end of the AO 09 Final the commentators are pretty much assuming that Fed is finished and Nadal will be overtaking all the records in a few years. And yet Fed won three more slams before Nadal won another. Shows we should never take anything for granted.

Of course.For example from 2011 to 2016 Federer won one GS title only.Nadal in this period won 5 GS titles.He missed another chance to overtake him.I know many people were saying how Nadal will soon reach Fed record but years have passed and he still cant do it

 

[Fedforever]

Of course.For example from 2011 to 2016 Federer won one GS title only.Nadal in this period won 5 GS titles.He missed another chance to overtake him.I know many people were saying how Nadal will soon reach Fed record but years have passed and he still cant do it

Apologies for the thread diversion, but I still think saving the break point against Haas in FO 09 was the most important shot he's made in his whole career. If he'd missed that (and assuming Haas held serve I suppose) I think his future career would have been very different.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

He fortunately found another weak era. Never misses out on those.

You, as a Nadal fan, should be the last person dissing Fed for taking advantage of 2017-2018 when Nadal won a Slam with the weakest field in history during this same period. At least Fed beat Nadal himself to take 4 of his 5 big titles last year.

Both of them can take advantage of the weak field currently, but Nadal should theoretically be in a better position to do so since he's only 31. WHEN Nadal wins RG this year, I hope you don't have double standards and admit that Nadal is also winning in a weak era.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I find this a really cool stat. Notice that all three at age 29 & 30 had off-years, it is fascinating. Djoker was actually catching up quite quickly too before his recent issues.

I think what will determine the Slam race is how Djokovic and most especially Nadal perform at 32-34. Fed won nothing at this age bracket because he was continuously stopped by Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal and Djokovic have a golden opportunity because it looks like there is absolutely no one capable of stopping them in the next 2-3 years. Their biggest opponent would be themselves, or each other, if Djokovic can somehow find his form again. That's a luxury Fed never had. For all the weak era BS he's received from this forum, I think it evened out towards the latter portion of his career.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

Why stop at age 31 though? Or was Nadal the main focus of your post?

LOL.
Because data is not available for beyond 31. Djokovic has still not turned 31, so how can you compare?

 

[Backspin1780]

He fortunately found another weak era. Never misses out on those.

He won 16 slams at the exact same time nadal won 16 slams. Hahahahaha right in front of nadal. Guess nadal counts as weak era mug. Now fed hasnt lost to nadal in nearly 5 years i guess nadal counts as weak era mug. Fed should be losing more often to mug nadal for the era to be strong

 

[mike danny]

LOL.
Because data is not available for beyond 31. Djokovic has still not turned 31, so how can you compare?

He is right though.

How about stopping at 30, since, in your own words, Djokovic hasn't yet turned 31?

 

[BeatlesFan]

He fortunately found another weak era. Never misses out on those.

Since Nadal has been playing Fed for the past 14 years, how can it possibly be "weak?" Never mind about Djoker, another ATG, who Fed had to play in 3 slam finals when the age differential was 34/28 and 35/29.

If Roger's era was weak, then so was Nadal's.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

He is right though.

How about stopping at 30, since, in your own words, Djokovic hasn't yet turned 31?

Yeah, but two of them have turned 31. So atleast there can be comparison b/w 2 (if not 3). And that is why OP says TBA in front of Djokovic's name. Beyond 31, there is only Roger. So makes no comparison.
Seriously? Is it that difficult to understand?

 

[tennis_pro]

These facts show just how close Rafa is to Fed if we put them at the same age. 17-16 is not a very big lead.

And then Nadal won 3 Slams at the age of 35-36, NOT.

 

[mike danny]

These facts show just how close Rafa is to Fed if we put them at the same age. 17-16 is not a very big lead.

What most people miss though is Rafa actually had a huge lead until age 25, after which Fed catches up and takes the lead to date. This is mostly because Fed regularly lost early when he was very young (before 22) while Rafa was one of the greatest teenage prodigies the sport had seen.

Roger makes up for this as he continues to win Slams into his 30's, which Rafa will have to match if he wants to keep the race close. It's not unreasonable for Rafa to take the lead soon, given the field, and as Fed didn't win anything from 32-34.

Actually, they are not that close. Age-wise, Nadal had a 3 year headstart on Federer. He should have surpassed Fed's slam count at 31 by now. But he is still 1 slam behind.

 

[Backspin1780]

Since Nadal has been playing Fed for the past 14 years, how can it possibly be "weak?" Never mind about Djoker, another ATG, who Fed had to play in 3 slam finals we when the age differential was 34/28 and 35/29.

If Roger's era was weak, then so was Nadal's.

Lol plus in 2004-2007 nadal actually won 3 slams and many masters hahaha in the same weak era you mention. Then he did one of his few decent seasons in one of the weakest eras in 2010. On top of that he ended up with a whole raft of weak era ALL TIME RECORDS. ALL TIME record most slam opponents who never ever won a slam, all time record most slams from players who were never ever no1, lowest ranked slam opponent ever faced by big four, lowest ranked uso finalists of all time, most slam wins consecutively vs non top 25 opponents

Peurta, ferrer, berdych, soderling, djokovic 2010, djok 2013, fed on clay

Lol @ForumMember but more to the point. He won 16 slams at the same time as fed won 16 slams hahahahaha failed. Try harder

 

[BHud]

Another butt-picker revisionist thread...the answer will become clear as to who is GOAT once they have both retired...at least for a while...nobody predicted Sampras' records would be broken so quickly, and by more than one guy.

 

[robthai]

This just shows how dominant peak Fed was. Nobody has won 11 slams in 4 years

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

This just shows how dominant peak Fed was. Nobody has won 11 slams in 4 years

Helps that AO wasn't as prestigious in the past as it's now.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

And then Nadal won 3 Slams at the age of 35-36, NOT.

Nadal isn't 35-36 yet so you cannot conclusively say that.

Anyway Nadal could win 3 slams a lot earlier. He has already won 2 slams at 31, and the consensus on this forum is that he'll win his 3rd slam past 30 by the French open, and he'll only be 32. Federer didn't win his second slam past 30 till he was 35.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal isn't 35-36 yet so you cannot conclusively say that.

Anyway Nadal could win 3 slams a lot earlier. He has already won 2 slams at 31, and the consensus on this forum is that he'll win his 3rd slam past 30 by the French open, and he'll only be 32. Federer didn't win his second slam past 30 till he was 35.

Because of the terrible young players, not because he is better in his 30's than Fed.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Actually, they are not that close. Age-wise, Nadal had a 3 year headstart on Federer. He should have surpassed Fed's slam count at 31 by now. But he is still 1 slam behind.

He is still one slam behind, but he has a good chance to catch up since Federer didn't win any slams at 32, 33 and 34. Federer's competition in his early 30's was just light years tougher. With Nadal being the red hot favorite to win his 17th slam at the FO, he's closer than you might think.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Because of the terrible young players, not because he is better in his 30's than Fed.

We're in complete agreement here. Fed had Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Nadal has... Thiem, Dimitrov and Zverev. There's a huge gaping chasm between the young competition they faced at 31/32.

 

[mike danny]

He is still one slam behind, but he has a good chance to catch up since Federer didn't win any slams at 32, 33 and 34. Federer's competition in his early 30's was just light years tougher. With Nadal being the red hot favorite to win his 17th slam at the FO, he's closer than you might think.

Nadal still failed to close the gap when Fed was not winning any slams for 4 years.

 

[tennis_pro]

Because of the terrible young players, not because he is better in his 30's than Fed.

I feel it was more impressive for Federer to get back to no 1 in 2012 than it was in 2017. I can't think of any other player years past his prime who could regain the no 1 spot against such competition.

 

[mike danny]

I feel it was more impressive for Federer to get back to no 1 in 2012 than it was in 2017. I can't think of any other player years past his prime who could regain the no 1 spot against such competition.

I agree. Nadal in 2012 would have not become no.1. He would not have become no.1 in 2017 either if Fed had been 5 years younger.

Still, Fed's recent run at no.1 may have not been as impressive as in 2012, but he has still done it while having to compete against Nadal. More impressive than Rafa's recent run anyway.

 

[EloQuent]

All these stats are interesting in a nerdy way, but you can't really compare entire careers like that. Rafa was a teen protegee, Roger a relatively late bloomer, Djokovic somewhere in between. Roger's main dominance was from 22-26, Djokovic hit two patches of dominance at 24 and again at 28, Rafa was never truly dominant, maybe in 2010 (24). But then in longevity, Roger's is unparalleled, Rafa's is pretty impressive too- and Novak fell off a cliff at 29.

The best comp of Rafa and Roger is probably to adjust the ages by 2- Rafa's 2005 to Roger's 2003, and so on.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Why stop at age 31 though? Or was Nadal the main focus of your post?

I only stopped at 31 because that is Djoker's age this year and therefore can't provide any data for him past this year - I'll update the post as we go.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The thing with Nadal is that he is beast on clay but on the other surfaces he is just good nothing more.If he was so good on HC he would have reached Federer GS record years ago.Unfortunately for Nadal there is only one GS on clay.Federer from February of 2010 to the early 2017 won only 2 GS.In this period Nadal had chances to reach him but failed.

Nadal is great on all surfaces. His off-clay record is the equivelant of the entire careers of guys like Edberg and Becker and just shy of McEnroe and Willander. I would say that puts that argument to bed - unless Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Willander are just..... good.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Since Nadal has been playing Fed for the past 14 years, how can it possibly be "weak?" Never mind about Djoker, another ATG, who Fed had to play in 3 slam finals we when the age differential was 34/28 and 35/29.

If Roger's era was weak, then so was Nadal's.

Agreed - I don't buy any weak era arguments. A player beats who he has to beat to win titles. Some come easier than others but that's how it is.

 

[tennisaddict]

Yeah, but two of them have turned 31. So atleast there can be comparison b/w 2 (if not 3). And that is why OP says TBA in front of Djokovic's name. Beyond 31, there is only Roger. So makes no comparison.
Seriously? Is it that difficult to understand?

OP should have given the full picture to show when Fed got his next 3 majors. So , folks are right asking why OP ended at 31. It is as if he hates remembering Fed won 3 more majors at age 35-36

 

[titoelcolombiano]

This just shows how dominant peak Fed was. Nobody has won 11 slams in 4 years

Yes, Fed certainly took advantage of his peak! I think it hurt Djoker a little that he didn't convert 2012, 2013 and / or 2014 (age 25, 26 & 27) into multiple slam years.

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal is great on all surfaces. His off-clay record is the equivelant of the entire careers of guys like Edberg and Becker and just shy of McEnroe and Willander. I would say that puts that argument to bed - unless Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Willander are just..... good.

But that is a wrong premise to compare Nadal with players who won 6-8 majors.

If you are comparing with Sampras and Fed, you need to acknoweldge Rafa's skewed success. Sampras and Fed were too good on two of three surfaces -

 

[Deon Sanders]

All we have accomplished here is 20>16

 

[titoelcolombiano]

But that is a wrong premise to compare Nadal with players who won 6-8 majors.

If you are comparing with Sampras and Fed, you need to acknoweldge Rafa's skewed success. Sampras and Fed were too good on two of three surfaces -

Rafa is one slam short of Johnny Mac - an all time great of the game, without including any RG titles - once you add to the fact that he is the clay goat he is a great tennis player, full-stop - no exceptions.

Nadal has won two Wimbledon titles, one AO title and a US Open title along with many hard court M1000 titles, an Olympic gold on hard - is there anything else you would like from him to prove his worthiness to you? I'll send him an email with your wish list.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

OP should have given the full picture to show when Fed got his next 3 majors. So , folks are right asking why OP ended at 31. It is as if he hates remembering Fed won 3 more majors at age 35-36

I'll update it as we go. It stopped at 31 because that is Djoker's age this year and I can't provide data for him past this year.

 

[EloQuent]

I'll update it as we go. It stopped at 31 because that is Djoker's age this year and I can't provide data for him past this year.

Easy, just fill in a bunch of zeros

 

[tennisaddict]

Rafa is one slam short of Johnny Mac - an all time great of the game, without including any RG titles - once you add to the fact that he is the clay goat he is a great tennis player, full-stop - no exceptions.

Nadal has won two Wimbledon titles, one AO title and a US Open title along with many hard court M1000 titles, an Olympic gold on hard - is there anything else you would like from him to prove his worthiness to you? I'll send him an email with your wish list.

I never said Rafa cannot play on grass or hard. He is a great player everywhere.

But what cannot be denied is that 10 of his 16 majors, 60% match wins , 65% titles all padded up on a single surface.

 

[tennisaddict]

Easy, just fill in a bunch of zeros

Exactly, if you already put TBA for Novak , why cannot we do the same for Rafa ?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I never said Rafa cannot play on grass or hard. He is a great player everywhere.

But what cannot be denied is that 10 of his 16 majors, 60% match wins , 65% titles all padded up on a single surface.

Yes, but I don't see how being so good that you can win one slam 10 times is counted as a negative on your resume when you have more than proven yoruself on all surfaces. I would 100% agree if say, he had failed to win a Wimby title or won 16 RG titles - he would be great but have huge holes in his resume (ala Pete) but a slam is a slam - expecially if you've won them all. Most players would dream about being able to 'pad' their resume with a slam win - they are not that easy. Fed, Rafa, Pete & Djoker are just that good that they make it look that way.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Exactly, if you already put TBA for Novak , why cannot we do the same for Rafa ?

I've already said I'll update it as I go. This is not an anti-Fed thread - no one is denying his three slams at age 35 & 36

 

[Plamen1234]

Nadal is great on all surfaces. His off-clay record is the equivelant of the entire careers of guys like Edberg and Becker and just shy of McEnroe and Willander. I would say that puts that argument to bed - unless Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Willander are just..... good.

He is great but it also depends to whom you compare him.Nobody denies his achievements on HC and grass.

 

[timnz]

What I mean by age in this thread is the year that they turned that age:

Age 19:
Rafa 1
Fed 0
Djoker 0

Age 20:
Rafa 2
Fed 0
Djoker 0

Age 21:
Rafa 3
Djoker 1
Fed 0

Age 22:
Rafa 5
Djoker 1
Fed 1

Age 23:
Rafa 6
Fed 4
Djoker 1

Age 24:
Rafa 9
Fed 6
Djoker 4

Age 25:
Rafa 10
Fed 9
Djoker 5

Age 26:
Fed 12
Rafa 11
Djoker 6

Age 27:
Fed 13
Rafa 13
Djoker 7

Age 28:
Fed 15
Rafa 14
Djoker 10

Age 29:
Fed 16
Rafa 14
Djoker 12

Age 30:
Fed 16
Rafa 14
Djoker 12

Age 31:
Fed 17
Rafa 16
Djoker TBA (2018 season - currently on 12)

Edit: I stopped at age 31 because that is Djoker's age this year and I am unable to provide any data for him past this year. I'll update as we go.

I find it interesting that commentator says that Nadal has time to pass Federer, in slam wins, and perhaps he does. But a simple comparison makes one question that. Federer was 28 1/2 when he won his 16th Slam and Nadal was 31. Hence Nadal was 2 1/2 years behind Federer reaching 16. Federer has won 3 slams since he turned 31 (you might say 4 slams since he was 30 11/12s. So If Nadal wins that many then he will be on 19 or 20 at 36 and 1/2.