How long will Federer's Slam Record Stand?

[BGod]

From when Roy Emerson pinned the record at 12 in 1967, it took 33 years before Sampras broke it in 2000.

Pete's record technically stood for nearly 9 years before Federer broke it, although Sampras' final tally was extended in 2002, so the 14 mark stood for less than 7 years.

Since Federer got his 15th Major in 2009, Nadal has not equaled it and Djokovic stands at 9. However to beat Federer's record one would need 18, or maybe even 19 if he can win one more.

So far, it has stood for over 6 years now. Here is the basic math on it:

4 Slams a year with a max probability of 3/4 average=Minimum 6 years for anyone starting in 2016.

Now, Djokovic and Nadal still technically have a shot, albeit unlikely, so I set the lowest count at 8-10 years.

After that however, I just went by 5s.

Realistically the record seems like it will stand for at least 15 years from the time it was set.

 

[Fedinkum]

Not too long, Rogie is about to make it 18. x fingers!!

 

[citybert]

5th slam could be an inevitability in Asia tennis is growing there and theyre just leaving $ on the table to not have a slam

(no AO is not asia's slam despite what they market)

 

[BGod]

Whenever I bring up the prospect of a 5th Slam, the rebuttal is that a prestigious Masters tournament that has a 128 player draw and a load of prize money will come instead of a Slam.

The whole "Slam" structure benefits the United States, England, France and Australia. To my knowledge there's a ton of reps for those countries that won't allow a 5th Slam to dilute the current 4.

If anything, I feel the current 4-9 structure will fall sooner rather than later to a 3 tier system.

The 5 set semifinals and finals might come back for a few big tournaments like Indian Wells.

What you'll then have is the 4 Slams, 2-3 Masters tournaments in line with the WTF, and then the rest.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Not too long, Rogie is about to make it 18. x fingers!!

Ha!

Completely random. Could be as fast as Sampras saw it happen; could be no one alive on these boards who will see it.

 

[90's Clay]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

 

[West Coast Ace]

5th slam could be an inevitability in Asia tennis is growing there and theyre just leaving $ on the table to not have a slam

(no AO is not asia's slam despite what they market)

Sorry. Money is a big deal in sports. But you can't just buy your way in. They could call it a Major until their feet bled - real tennis fans wouldn't buy it.

And not sure what you know about Asia - but tennis is still a sport for the very very wealthy. And I have a feeling once the big 4 retire the Asian Swing may be cut back - those tournaments will not survive when the money goes away. And when the fans stop showing up, the money will go away. I've been going to Shanghai for years - almost all of the fans I've met don't play tennis and/or are only fans of one of the Big 4. They will be gone when their favorite is gone.

 

[90's Clay]

From when Roy Emerson pinned the record at 12 in 1967, it took 33 years before Sampras broke it in 2000.

Pete's record technically stood for nearly 9 years before Federer broke it, although Sampras' final tally was extended in 2002, so the 14 mark stood for less than 7 years.

Since Federer got his 15th Major in 2009, Nadal has not equaled it and Djokovic stands at 9. However to beat Federer's record one would need 18, or maybe even 19 if he can win one more.

So far, it has stood for over 6 years now. Here is the basic math on it:

4 Slams a year with a max probability of 3/4 average=Minimum 6 years for anyone starting in 2016.

Now, Djokovic and Nadal still technically have a shot, albeit unlikely, so I set the lowest count at 8-10 years.

After that however, I just went by 5s.

Realistically the record seems like it will stand for at least 15 years from the time it was set.

Pete had a specific goal in mind to break Emerson's record. No one else had that goal Now that everyone looks at the slam record being the holy grail (They didn;t until Pete broke it) players will be hungrier to attain that goal

 

[Tennisanity]

Only guy that had a chance is Nadal, and he still is the only guy. But now it looks that may not be possible, but you never know. 3 is not that large a number.

 

[BGod]

The 6 years minimum is more for technicalities than anything. It would realistically take 10+ years to break Roger's mark for any one player.

The notion that Nadal would have broken it if he wasn't injured is countered by his winning so many after his sabbaticals. Had he not taken time off maybe he'd be retired already.

Hindsight will show how disgustingly unbelievable Federer actually was. Too bad he choked that 05 AO & 09 USO. Ah well.

I voted 30-40 years as nobody 16+ strikes me as a realistic contender to get it. Again, he's held it for 6 years already.

 

[Bartelby]

Slams are run under the auspices of the ITF so basically the current four slam holders would have to lose power to the central body or otherwise commit suicide.

The ATP is a different matter but it is failing in its efforts to attract real fan support from Asia.

5th slam could be an inevitability in Asia tennis is growing there and theyre just leaving $ on the table to not have a slam

(no AO is not asia's slam despite what they market)

 

[West Coast Ace]

Too bad he choked that 05 AO & 09 USO. Ah well.

I'm going to give the credit to the winner in 05. But I will go to my grave believing Fed felt bad for the breadstick he was about to give JMDP in 09 and let off the gas and let him in the match. Should be 18 already....

17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

Sure, Skippy. Piece of cake. Journey just called - 'Don't Stop Believin'!'

 

[MasturB]

Not too long, Rogie is about to make it 18. x fingers!!

Why did you change your avatar?!!? The Finger Wag Swag forever!!!

 

[MasturB]

I'm going to give the credit to the winner in 05. But I will go to my grave Fed felt bad for the breadstick he was about to give JMDP in 09 and let off the gas and let him in the match. Should be 18 already....

Sure, Skippy. Piece of cake. Journey just called - 'Don't Stop Believin'!'

And a Federer Slam. (He had won the Channel Slam, plus the Aussie in 2010).

 

[Booger]

I think a lot depends on the ATP. If they find a player they like, they will rig the game like they did for Nadal.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

Except Federer will have had the slam record for 7 years next year...

LOL and unless Nadal wins all 4 majors next year he will have broken Pete's record there again.

 

[Deleted member 740774]

But I will go to my grave believing Fed felt bad for the breadstick he was about to give JMDP in 09 and let off the gas and let him in the match. Should be 18 already....

**** off if you think Federer purposely lost games that match.

 

[Fedfan34]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

Amen. I for one am looking forward to the day when you retire from the couch coaching championships and enter the real world where you show these bums how its done.

 

[90's Clay]

Amen. I for one am looking forward to the day when you retire from the couch coaching championships and enter the real world where you show these bums how its done.

Within the span of a decade TWO players have equalled or surpassed 14 slams.. And maybe we will get a 3rd.

18 slams isn't that farfetched. Especilally if you have dominant players with no depth.. And I don't see any depth in the near future in the men's game.

To really put the slam count out of reach, someone will have to hit 22-25 slams.


A calendar slam or 200 titles that Laver has won't be touch.. But 18 slams probably will in the next 10-20 years

 

[Fedfan34]

Within the span of a decade TWO players have equalled or surpassed 14 slams.. And maybe we will get a 3rd.

18 slams isn't that farfetched. Especilally if you have dominant players with no depth.. And I don't see any depth in the near future in the men's game.

To really put the slam count out of reach, someone will have to hit 22-25 slams

When Fed hangs up his racket, perhaps Pistol Pete will come out of retirement just for lolz and win the calendar slam until 2029, where he is only stopped by Skynet's attack on humanity?

 

[citybert]

Sorry. Money is a big deal in sports. But you can't just buy your way in. They could call it a Major until their feet bled - real tennis fans wouldn't buy it.

And not sure what you know about Asia - but tennis is still a sport for the very very wealthy. And I have a feeling once the big 4 retire the Asian Swing may be cut back - those tournaments will not survive when the money goes away. And when the fans stop showing up, the money will go away. I've been going to Shanghai for years - almost all of the fans I've met don't play tennis and/or are only fans of one of the Big 4. They will be gone when their favorite is gone.

good point on the big four. but you can definitely buy your way into sports. look at soccer teams, FIFA world cup location bidding, match fixing, team ownership, these are all examples of buying your way into sport. the amount Singapore pays for the WTA WTF is astronomical.

 

[cc0509]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

LMAO! What if Roger wins another one?

 

[chjtennis]

It takes 4 years of extreme winning streak + some extra to get to 17 slams. I guess it will take at least 8 years of a player's career to match or break it. If a young player starts to dominate from next year, it will take 8 years from then, but I don't see that happening. I don't think Nadal, the player who is closest to the record, will do it, and honestly, I don't see Djokovic, who is 8 slams behind Federer, doing it either. So, the earliest that can happen would be like 10 years later, probably. I wonder, however, if that can ever happen in the next 15 years.

 

[timnz]

Whenever I bring up the prospect of a 5th Slam, the rebuttal is that a prestigious Masters tournament that has a 128 player draw and a load of prize money will come instead of a Slam.

The whole "Slam" structure benefits the United States, England, France and Australia. To my knowledge there's a ton of reps for those countries that won't allow a 5th Slam to dilute the current 4.

If anything, I feel the current 4-9 structure will fall sooner rather than later to a 3 tier system.

The 5 set semifinals and finals might come back for a few big tournaments like Indian Wells.

What you'll then have is the 4 Slams, 2-3 Masters tournaments in line with the WTF, and then the rest.

Miami used to have a big draw and 5 set matches in the late 80's - and it stayed a Super 9/Masters 1000. People used to call it the '5th Slam', but never seriously considered it as equal to a Slam (though it was prestigious).

 

[Prabhanjan]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

Thats the myth that if not for injury Nadal would have won 17+ slams. Where exactly?

AO: The only weak year that appears is AO 14 and Nadal lost that. Injury or not, Stan was too hot to handle. Don't tell me a healthy Nadal would have stopped Nole at 11, 12, 13, and 15. That leaves only 2010. The pressure of going for "Nadal" slam is way too higher than injury and/or everything else. Since Laver, only Federer has made the finals of 4th slam on two occasions in 2006/07.

FO: Not certainly 15, as Stan would have again most likely prevailed over Nadal the way he showed up in the final against Nole.

Wimby: Forget 2012-2015, there is not much to be added there. So, that brings us to 2009. Given the draw that year, even a healthy Nadal would have most likely lost to Roddick in QF/SF. Even if he had won Wimbledon in 09, he may have lost one of those two 5 setters. Don't see how Nadal wins a single more Wimbledon?

USO: Beaten fair and square in 2009. There simply does not exist a case for a player losing 2,2,2 in SF. Lost fair and square in 11 too. So, only 12 and 14 are legitimate cases. The scars of being Rosol-ed was too much and another Fognified would have probably ended his aura beyond the FO. 2015 only shows how over-rated the 22-1 statistic at the USO stands, or that only 1 loss in 2010-2014. If anything, it appears the injury period also helped Nadal to keep his aura which otherwise would have ended by 2012 at the max.

 

[Fedinkum]

I wanted to be nicer to the Nadal & Djokovic fans lol

Why did you change your avatar?!!? The Finger Wag Swag forever!!!

 

[TennisManiac]

It will never be broke. And he's even going to add one more before he's done.

 

[tennis_pro]

If Djokovic doesn't break it, I don't think anyone will for the next 15 years at least. It's a breakable record. Nadal looked almost certain to break it a year ago, Djokovic if he continues playing so well for another 2 years he could have a shot.

 

[Enga]

I think the record breaker has already been born

 

[MasturB]

I wanted to be nicer to the Nadal & Djokovic fans lol

Can't do it.

 

[roger presley]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

I thought that Pete's record would stand for a many years. Today I' m not certain anymore that Djokovic isn' t going to break Nadal's.

 

[MasturB]

I thought that Pete's record would stand for a many years. Today I' m not certain anymore that Djokovic isn' t going to break Nadal's.

I don't know, I see more Djokovic clones coming the next few years which might cut down on his chances of winning more slams.

I can see Djokovic's natural abilities giving him a longer career like Agassi. Agassi's longevity came from the fact the new wave of guys that were coming in, Agassi had been playing that baseline game for many years already. I think it will be different with Djoker though, every newcomer he's gooing to face is going to have a similar game to him and don't know if he gets into his 30's if he can grind points still. The good news is for him his serve has improved drastically, if he can improve his serve like Fed in the last part of his career like Fed has, his career will be extended. Otherwise he may suffer the same fate as Rafa.

 

[BeatlesFan]

It will probably be broken in 10-15 years, if not sooner. Some prodigy will come along with a huge serve, an enormous game and mental strength. Think of Sampras, but an evolved, more beastly version. Novak and Nadal will not get 17 slams. Rafa won't get another one and Nole might get 2-4 more, if he stays healthy and motivated.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

When Djokovic surpasses him

 

[90's Clay]

Thats the myth that if not for injury Nadal would have won 17+ slams. Where exactly?

AO: The only weak year that appears is AO 14 and Nadal lost that. Injury or not, Stan was too hot to handle. Don't tell me a healthy Nadal would have stopped Nole at 11, 12, 13, and 15. That leaves only 2010. The pressure of going for "Nadal" slam is way too higher than injury and/or everything else. Since Laver, only Federer has made the finals of 4th slam on two occasions in 2006/07.

FO: Not certainly 15, as Stan would have again most likely prevailed over Nadal the way he showed up in the final against Nole.

Wimby: Forget 2012-2015, there is not much to be added there. So, that brings us to 2009. Given the draw that year, even a healthy Nadal would have most likely lost to Roddick in QF/SF. Even if he had won Wimbledon in 09, he may have lost one of those two 5 setters. Don't see how Nadal wins a single more Wimbledon?

USO: Beaten fair and square in 2009. There simply does not exist a case for a player losing 2,2,2 in SF. Lost fair and square in 11 too. So, only 12 and 14 are legitimate cases. The scars of being Rosol-ed was too much and another Fognified would have probably ended his aura beyond the FO. 2015 only shows how over-rated the 22-1 statistic at the USO stands, or that only 1 loss in 2010-2014. If anything, it appears the injury period also helped Nadal to keep his aura which otherwise would have ended by 2012 at the max.

AO- Stan was NEVER too hot to handle for Nadal if Nadal wasn't injured. Thats why Stan had never even beaten Nadal up until that point No injury to Nadal last year the AO, he beats Stan.

French- I suppose its arguable he wasn't physically all there for the French in 2009 either. Look at how he DESTROYED Soderling the year after. I don't believe Nadal was at his physical best at the French that year and him withdrawing from Wimbledon that year kind of confirms my suspicions

Wimbledon- 2009 Easily. HE was at the very peak of his career.. Who would have beaten him if he played and was healthy there? Fed barely could get by Roddick. He certainly isn't beating Nadal

USO-2009, He had a torn adbdomen muscle vs. Del Potro if I remember correctly. If he gets by Del Potro when hes healthy there is NO WAY he loses to Fed in the final

... And there are a few others

Thats 18 and better for Nadal

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Another 57 years.

 

[RF20Lennon]

AO- Stan was NEVER too hot to handle for Nadal if Nadal wasn't injured. Thats why Stan had never even beaten Nadal up until that point No injury to Nadal last year the AO, he beats Stan.

French- I suppose its arguable he wasn't physically all there for the French in 2009 either. Look at how he DESTROYED Soderling the year after. I don't believe Nadal was at his physical best at the French that year and him withdrawing from Wimbledon that year kind of confirms my suspicions

Wimbledon- 2009 Easily. HE was at the very peak of his career.. Who would have beaten him if he played and was healthy there? Fed barely could get by Roddick. He certainly isn't beating Nadal

USO-2009, He had a torn adbdomen muscle vs. Del Potro if I remember correctly. If he gets by Del Potro when hes healthy there is NO WAY he loses to Fed in the final

... And there are a few others

Thats 18 and better for Nadal

All I see here is a bunch of if's and maybe's.

Which I can provide for Federer as well which would've put him at 30 slams or more.

Example- I suppose its arguable that Federer wasn't physically all there in the 2008 Wimbledon final due to mono. If he gets Nadal on grass when he's healthy, as evidenced by two prior finals there is no way he loses to him. Not to mention Nadal playing 5 setters against Petzchner and Robin Hasse.

Another example- Federer was advised by his doctors to skip AO 2008 due to his mono but he still played. If he had gotten 2008 Djokovic when he was healthy NO WAY he would've lost to him as he didn't lose to him once after that match that year.

 

[ibbi]

In the age of slam chasing and surface homogenization probably not all that incredibly long.

 

[RF20Lennon]

In the age of slam chasing and surface homogenization probably not all that incredibly long.

Yeah but for some reason I don't think any of the current players will. I think somebody new will who hasn't won a slam yet so I'll give him about 10 years or so. I mean it has to be broken at some point.

 

[BGod]

To be fair, it's only been since around the late 80s that all 4 Majors have been well attended and pursued.

On the other hand, that doesn't add too much with the Aussie Open and it may stretch players out now.

Ultimately, even the best of the best are hard pressed to have more than 3 all-time seasons of 2-3 Slams. I feel Federer will prove to be an anomaly, not the norm.

Nadal only won multiple Slams in 3 seasons and only one 3 Slam year. He needed to be the most dominant player at a Slam to even get to 14 titles. Look at Golf for example.

There's a leveling off once you get to double digits. Sampras had four multi-Slam seasons but never a 3 Slam year. He also won 12 years apart. Last two seasons he was a factor at only the USO.

 

[BGod]

Had Federer gotten to 20 Slams, I think that mark would have stood for half a century.

But see, that's the whole point of how vaunted his 17 titles are. That he had opportunities to get several more.

Look at it this way, Sampras went an unheard of 14-4 in Slam Finals. Federer has gone 17-9.

Nadal is 14-6, again largely due to the French where he went 9-0 (that's 5-6 outside of it).

I feel a player would probably have to make at least 25 Finals and go 18-7 in them to break it. That's quite obscene.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Thiem will break the record in 2025. 

 

[DolgoSantoro]

He's already had it for six full years, so he's certain to hold the record longer than Pete did.

I see the record lasting quite a long time if Nadal and Djokovic end up falling short. Players of their caliber don't come along too often.

 

[sportsfan1]

At this point it's just Djokovic standing in the way. It all depends on whether Fed can maintain his level and catch a few breaks with Djokovic getting upset. Otherwise if Djokovic goes on a couple of slam runs or Rafa recovers, that record could be under serious threat.

 

[roger presley]

I don't know, I see more Djokovic clones coming the next few years which might cut down on his chances of winning more slams.

I can see Djokovic's natural abilities giving him a longer career like Agassi. Agassi's longevity came from the fact the new wave of guys that were coming in, Agassi had been playing that baseline game for many years already. I think it will be different with Djoker though, every newcomer he's gooing to face is going to have a similar game to him and don't know if he gets into his 30's if he can grind points still. The good news is for him his serve has improved drastically, if he can improve his serve like Fed in the last part of his career like Fed has, his career will be extended. Otherwise he may suffer the same fate as Rafa.

I agree .

 

[forzamilan90]

Pete's lasted for what 7 years?? Fed's won't last long because players have a certain goal to achieve.

In fact, Fed's would have broken a long time ago if Nadal wasn't injured. 17 isn't that difficult to break if you stay healthy

getting over 10 majors for any players is freaking unbelievable. Getting to 17 majors for Nadal, Djokovic, whoever in the future will be a legendary effort. Don't make it sound like breaking the record is a foregone conclusion

 

[forzamilan90]

delete post

 

[mike danny]

If Nadal finishes slamless next year as well, he ain't breaking the record.

 

[Sysyphus]

To break the record, Nadal would need four more slams. That's the same number he has won from the start of 2011 through 2015. I think it's fair to say that that ship has all but sailed, unless he miraculously regains clay-goatness and wins 4 more RG's...

Novak needs 9 more. As many as he has won thus far. Clearly not happening.

Fed should bump his record to 18 in order to make it last longer. As this era has shown, several 10+ slam-winners will surely emerge in the not-so-distant future. Similar conditions and all that. The powers that be have everything to gain from making record-breaking a possibility. It creates a lot of excitement and buzz.

 

[Prabhanjan]

AO- Stan was NEVER too hot to handle for Nadal if Nadal wasn't injured. Thats why Stan had never even beaten Nadal up until that point No injury to Nadal last year the AO, he beats Stan.

Not in the least you are correct about this one. Nadal was not injured at least up to a set and break down in the second set. Like you are giving the benefit of injury doubt to Nadal, why don't you extend to all the players who choke out? If Stan had the same mental strength as at AO14 and FO15, he would have never allowed himself to be 10-0 or whatever without ever winning a set.

French- I suppose its arguable he wasn't physically all there for the French in 2009 either. Look at how he DESTROYED Soderling the year after. I don't believe Nadal was at his physical best at the French that year and him withdrawing from Wimbledon that year kind of confirms my suspicions

Physical best? Don't we all know that many times one has to win without being at the best. And the price of winning in 09 would have built up the pressure of being a 6-, 7- or 8- time defending champion and he may have cracked some other opportunity either 2011, 2013, or 2014. An addition there would also result in a deletion at other place. So, when you give him 2009, you also need to do some balance and take away something. Just because Bobby Fisher quit chess when at No.1 does not imply he would have never ever lost. Same about Borg. His continuing post 1982 does not mean he would have dominated and won every other FO till he stopped playing.

Wimbledon- 2009 Easily. HE was at the very peak of his career.. Who would have beaten him if he played and was healthy there? Fed barely could get by Roddick. He certainly isn't beating Nadal

Why can't Roddick beat Nadal? If Nadal can be taken to 5 sets twice in 2010 by rank lower players, and beaten 4 consecutive times by players ranked below 100, a player of Roddick's calibre can certainly stop Nadal. This is not rocket science. And even if he had won 2009, he may have thrown the towel in 2010 when twice drawn to 5th set.

USO-2009, He had a torn adbdomen muscle vs. Del Potro if I remember correctly. If he gets by Del Potro when hes healthy there is NO WAY he loses to Fed in the final

The del Potro was gradually improving. You can't merely track Nadal's progression and ignore every other factor in the universe. After being double-bageled and a poor 3 games in AO QF, he took Fed to 5th set at FO and eventually beaten him at USO. This del Potro can't be stopped by healthy Nadal who can be blown out of the court by players like del Potro. So, the question of Nadal winning USO in 2009 does not arise.

... And there are a few others

Thats 18 and better for Nadal

The problem is when you add a fictitious slam to a player, you forget to delete some. So, its nothing but a myth. And if still want to be honest with your these perfect health Nadal, why don't you extend the so-called mental strength-ness to other players and see where Nadal stands? Or that give Pete a competitor as great as Nadal instead of a 8-slam Agassi and see where Pete stands instead of hiding under the excuse of Pete stopped Agassi when the fact is Agassi has almost always lost a slam final to a 2+slam winner.