Performance Until the 29th Birthday

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Federer turned 29 in 2010, Nadal turned 29 in 2015, Novak turned 29 in 2016, Murray turned 29 in 2016, Kyrgios will turn 29 next year and he already seems done and dusted, Sampras turned 29 in 2000, players before the big 3 including Sampras did not have the luxury of having a second wind like Federer, Nadal and now Djokovic have had along with Serena, so thought of checking statistics for everyone since Kyrgios is making a lot of noise.

Number of titles on the 29th Birthday

01. Connors - 88
02. Lendl - 75
03. Mcenroe - 70
04. Borg - 66
05. Nadal - 65
06. Djokovic - 64
07. Sampras - 63
08. Federer - 62
09. Becker - 48
10. Edberg - 42
11. Agassi - 40
12. Murray - 36
13. Wilander - 33

Big Title Counts on the 29th birthday

01. Djokovic - 45
02. Nadal - 42
03. Federer - 36
04. Sampras - 31
05. Mcenroe - 31
06. Lendl - 29
07. Borg - 25
08. Connors - 23
09. Becker - 22
10. Wilander - 15
11. Murray - 15
12. Edberg - 14
13. Agassi - 14
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kyrgios - 0


Win% on 29th Birthday

01. Connors - 85.8%
02. Mcenroe - 85%
03. Lendl - 84.7%
04. Borg - 83.9%
05. Nadal - 83.1%
06. Djokovic - 82.9%
07. Federer - 80.7%
08. Sampras - 78.8%
09. Becker - 78.2%
10. Murray - 77.2%
11. Edberg - 76.2%
12. Agassi - 75.4%
13. Wilander - 74.9%

Win% against Top 10 on 29th Birthday

01. Borg - 69.6%
02. Djokovic - 68%
03. Federer - 66.7%
04. Becker - 66.1%
05. Nadal - 66.5%
06. Connors - 65.5%
07. Sampras - 65.3%
08. Lendl - 65%
09. Mcenroe - 61.9%
10. Agassi - 53.8%
11. Murray - 53.3%
12. Wilander - 52%
13. Edberg - 48.1%

Win% against the Top 5 on 29th Birthday

01. Borg - 70.1%
02. Sampras - 66.3%
03. Federer - 63%
04. Nadal - 62%
05. Lendl - 61.9%
06. Becker - 62.7%
07. Djokovic - 58.7%
08. Agassi - 54.2%
09. Mcenroe - 53.2%
10. Connors - 51.9%
11. Wilander - 46%
12. Murray - 43.1%
13. Edberg - 42.2%


Big titles win% vs top 10 on 29th Birthday

01. Borg - 73.3%
02. Federer - 70.3%
03. Djokovic - 68%
04. Sampras - 66.9%
05. Becker - 66.1%
06. Nadal - 65.9%
07. Connors - 65.2%
08. Mcenroe - 63.8%
09. Lendl - 63.3%
10. Wilander - 53.3%
11. Agassi - 51.6%
12. Murray - 50%
13. Edberg - 48.4%


Big titles win% vs top 5 on 29th Birthday

01. Borg - 68.6%
02. Sampras - 67.6%
03. Federer - 64.6%
04. Lendl - 63.2%
05. Nadal - 61.9%
06. Djokovic - 61.6%
07. Mcenroe - 58.6%
08. Becker - 58.4%
09. Agassi - 52.6%
10. Connors - 47.7%
11. Wilander - 47.7%
12. Edberg - 39.8%
13. Murray - 38.9%


Murray's numbers are fairly good considering the fact that he is not an ATG.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Murray wasn't an ATG because he played nearly all of his finals against either Federer or Djokovic, two GOATs.

He had all the potential to win around six slams, just got shut out by Fedovic.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Quick, do majors instead of "big titles." :p

Sadly I can't do that because Tennis landscape was different, people were skipping majors, the atp finals and some other tournaments had more significance. So any cross era comparisons have to done on Big Titles at the very least..... not that it would still be accurate but it is still better than doing Majors.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Murray wasn't an ATG because he played nearly all of his finals against either Federer or Djokovic, two GOATs.

He had all the potential to win around six slams, just got shut out by Fedovic.

He's not ATG because he didn't play them in finals but he didn't beat them regularly ( even old Fed beat him like a drum)
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
He's not ATG because he didn't play them in finals but he didn't beat them regularly ( even old Fed beat him like a drum)

True ....while Murray can be given credit for having caught hold of Djokovic 2 times in slam finals which is more than what most people can dream of, it is worth nothing that he is a huge super duper flop vs Federer and Nadal. That is what decided his fate on why he is no ATG.
 
Last edited:

Pheasant

Legend
Good stats, OP. I like a combo of big titles and winning pct vs top-5. If you are high up on both lists for your era, then you are a heavyweight.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Listed chronologically

vs top5 by 29th Birthday
Borg 70.11% 61-26
McEn 53.21% 58-51
Lend 61.86% 73-45
Pete 66.28% 57-29
Fedr 63.04% 58-34
Rafa 62.04% 67-41
Nole 58.70% 81-57

vs top10 by 29th Birthday
Borg 69.64% 117-51
McEn 61.93% 109-67
Lend 64.97% 128-69
Pete 65.32% 113-60
Fedr 66.67% 122-61
Rafa 66.50% 131-66
Nole 67.98% 172-81
 
Last edited:

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
Great stats:

Alcaraz has a career win rate of over 78% and is right now at 84%+. Vs top10 over 60%, last year almost 65%. Incredible for a such a youngster.
Sinner is clearly below with a win rate of 71% and 78% in the last year. Vs top10 45% but jumped to 68%. Big improvements over the year.
Rune 61% and 65.7% while vs top10 48% and 35%.

It is difficult to understand just how impressive Charlie's stats are, especially since they still trending up. Starting from a lower base Jannik is rising more steeply at the moment while Rune had a tough year.

The number of times Sinner has already played against Zverev, Tsitipas, Medvedev, Alcaraz, Djokovic and Nadal considering the little overlap is actually quite unfortunate. At least 34 matches...
 

Pheasant

Legend
Piggy-backing, here are some various players' records vs top-10 through their age-20 seasons:

Nadal 19-9, .679
Hewitt 31-15, .674
Becker 33-16, .673
Alcaraz 23-15, .605
Safind15-10, .600
McEnroe 19-15
Wilander 25-22, .532
Borg 26-27, .491
Lendl 14-17, .452
Federer 9-18, .333
DJokovic 9-19, .321

Carlos so far is in great company.
 
D

Dwell

Guest
In that case I think we should begin to consider Alcaraz in the ATG conversation
shaq-top-2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
From what I understand

before prize money was even in the realm of participation fees, the players would miss a masters level event easily if they were getting paid for some 250 more money. and since they had no option, they went with the money.


that's how these guys won 70/80/90 titles in such a short timespan. its not possible today and i say good riddance as well. today we see the top players playing together on the main tournaments. i mean seriously how BAD it would have been if Sinner and Djokovic were playing 2 very different circuits post USOpen 2023 and we would never see them vs each other. Let's say both won 3 tournaments instead of 2 each, would that really be BETTER? I don't think so.
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
razer, do you have stats on those points you mentioned for courier, roddick and wawa, would be great to see what numbers they have in here
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
In that case I think we should begin to consider Alcaraz in the ATG conversation
shaq-top-2.jpg
Sorry was I tagged here? Got a notification lol

He is going to be an ATG. He isn’t yet.

pic related; Shaq was full of BS when he said this. Curry, on the other hand, does not and never will deserve a spot in the GOAT conversation
 
D

Dwell

Guest
Sorry was I tagged here? Got a notification lol

He is going to be an ATG. He isn’t yet.

pic related; Shaq was full of BS when he said this. Curry, on the other hand, does not and never will deserve a spot in the GOAT conversation
Yea, I tagged you bc I knew you must've heard of Shaq's comment on Curry lol, but didn't wanna harass you.
Wow, "never will" is harsh lol he could pad his stats with some lebrongevity and seriously enter the conversation.
If Carlos wins RG next year, he's ATG imo. Clay + Grass + HC Slam at such a young age? You're an ATG to me.
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
Unfortunately not because Stan managed as many slams as him in the same era and Tsonga and Berdych have similar H2H numbers vs the Big 3 in slams.
i guess its a misleading point about h2h and that it kinda proves that murray is not better than birdman and tsonga based just on that, stich and becker have same 33% vs pete and andre combined in their all matches in h2h, iirc first eight matches of murray vs big 3 guys at slams is 1-7, becker is 1-7 too vs pete and andre combined at slams
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
Yea, I tagged you bc I knew you must've heard of Shaq's comment on Curry lol, but didn't wanna harass you.
Wow, "never will" is harsh lol he could pad his stats with some lebrongevity and seriously enter the conversation.
If Carlos wins RG next year, he's ATG imo. Clay + Grass + HC Slam at such a young age? You're an ATG to me.
Who’s in your basketball GOAT conversation?

How is he better than any of those guys?
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Suck it up, you do whine like this every single day.

Son, it seems a simple stat triggers you that bad. Novak wasn't good enough to win even half of his slams when Fedal were in their prime and feasted on the weakest era. Winning 13+ slams post 29 is not natural. In all sports players don't perform 150% better post 29. Also, as far as sucking it up is concerned, look son, I have defended Djokovic more than Djoko b 0 ts and have given him his due credit , so don't get me started.
 
Last edited:

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
They are all below Murray.

Problem is not all stats are same. Like not all top 10s are same , not all wins are same ( win in BO3 and BO5) BO3 were never given any weightage simply because slams are entirely different animals and here Murray failed imo, he was defeating fed in BO3 when he was a baby but couldn't do it in slams even against ancient Fed.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic won freaking 12+slams after 29. That's testament to weakest competition in history.

I think it is swings both ways for Djokovic & Federer.

Federer had no prime level ATG competition on his fav surfaces until he was close to 27 years old and Federer made the most of it.
Djokovic has no prime level ATG competition aged in the 20s when he is in his 30s and he too has exploited a lot of this, could not make the most of it due to covid but he too has utilized it to the extreme.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Problem is not all stats are same. Like not all top 10s are same , not all wins are same ( win in BO3 and BO5) BO3 were never given any weightage simply because slams are entirely different animals and here Murray failed imo, he was defeating fed in BO3 when he was a baby but couldn't do it in slams even against ancient Fed.

Agreed... Thats why I think even if we compare players across eras we should only compare till age 29-30, beyond that it could be unfair on 20th century greats, quality of top 10 has lowered a lot in last few years, you are right. It was bad in some years in 2000s too.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
I think it is swings both ways for Djokovic & Federer.

Federer had no prime level ATG competition on his fav surfaces until he was close to 27 years old and Federer made the most of it.
Djokovic has no prime level ATG competition aged in the 20s when he is in his 30s and he too has exploited a lot of this, could not make the most of it due to covid but he too has utilized it to the extreme.

I can make a case for Fed that baseline game was still evolving and he took time to master it ( wasted his early years) that wasn't the case with Djokovic and Nadal , both got template for success early as shown by Fed. Also, Fed's window was quite short as compared to Djokovic. Nadal and Djokovic showed up when we thought Fed would run away with literally everything. A similar case can be made for Djokovic that he was not in his absolute peak of physical prowess when got the weakest competition but he was still close to it and his window was very long.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I can make a case for Fed that baseline game was still evolving and he took time to master it ( wasted his early years) that wasn't the case with Djokovic and Nadal , both got template for success early as shown by the Fed. Also, Fed's window was quite short as compared to Djokovic. Nadal and Djokovic showed up when we thought Fed would run away with literally everything. A similar case can be made for Djokovic that he was not in his absolute peak of physical prowess when got the weakest competition but he was still close to it and his window was very long.

Good points, and I agree with you on this, but if you tell this to @nachiket nolefam he will outright reject this. The Fed points when compared to Djokodal, they will all be rejected along with competition argument.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Good points, and I agree with you on this, but if you tell this to @nachiket nolefam he will outright reject this.

Imagine peak Fed from 2001-2007. Lord have mercy on us lol. He would have won like 18+ slams already before Nadal and Djokovic become threat on all surfaces. Had you followed tennis back then you would have seen how baseline tennis was still evolving and it wasn't the same , here Fed missed out . As far as Djoko b 0 ts are concerned they are not worth the time, many are on ignore .they accuse me hating on their hero but I have defended him more than they have( you know it).
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Imagine peak Fed from 2001-2007. Lord have mercy on us lol. He would have won like 18+ slams already before Nadal and Djokovic become threat on all surfaces. Had you followed tennis back then you would have seen how baseline tennis was still evolving and it wasn't the same , here Fed missed out . As far as Djoko b 0 ts are concerned they are not worth the time, many are on ignore .they accuse me hating on their hero but I have defended hin more than them ( you know it).

Yes, if Federer had exploited 01-03 completely just like 04-07 then we are looking at something very mind boggling. Hype would have been even more. The 01-03 was more about Hewitt, Safin, Fed, rising Roddick but he just eliminated them all from 04, had he done this 2-3 years earlier then it would have been even more amazing. Ideally 01 Wimbledon had he won and started his run, he would have been on 18+. Yes baseline era was evolving, the top players themselves met each other before semi finals as rankings were fluctuating, all that stopped from mid 00s onwards, top 10 became more stable, same players started to reach the last rounds more and more. Federer credits Hewitt as a pioneer of modern game saying he showed us that you could play big servers from the back of the court, but if you ask Djokovic fans then they would consider Hewitt/Safin/Roddick as average players because they lack the longevity. Djokovic's window post 33-34 is indeed longer than what Federer's was before he turned 22-23, and that has made a difference in the end. Credit to him for maintaining fitness and motivation for this long.
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Nadal 19-9, .679
Hewitt 31-15, .674
Becker 33-16, .673
Alcaraz 23-15, .605
Safind15-10, .600
McEnroe 19-15
Wilander 25-22, .532
Borg 26-27, .491
Lendl 14-17, .452
Federer 9-18, .333
DJokovic 9-19, .321

The bottom 4 of the list turn out to be gold—Who would have thought.
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Agreed... Thats why I think even if we compare players across eras we should only compare till age 29-30, beyond that it could be unfair on 20th century greats, quality of top 10 has lowered a lot in last few years, you are right. It was bad in some years in 2000s too.

True, it's outright stupid to compare greats of different eras in first place . As i stated 100 times, even when Pete was being disrespected on the forum , Pete absolutely bosser his era and didn't let anyone come close to him in slam race. If Pete could play till 37-38 with modern medicine and conditions suited to his 90s game then he would have won as much as big 3. Funny thing is when slam record got broken Pete started to get the recognition and getting respect. Maybe those fans saw things ,eras and greatness in absolute terms and the common sense and logic prevailed when the record was gone and drug of GOAThood waned?
 
Last edited:

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Funny thing is when slam record got broken Pete started to get the recognition and getting respects. Maybe those fans saw things ,eras and greatness in absolute terms and the common sense and logic prevailed when the record was gone and drug of GOAThood waned?

Yes, I too was under Federer's GOAThood drug in 2000s and did not care for Pete/respect him, I used to think Pete fans are crybabies and losers for talking of weak era, even Federer himself was under the same drug that we fans were on. As his record was chased, his CGS became a DCGS & now TCGS, his longevity in his 30s was matched and is being bettered now. Everything has fallen apart and now respect for Pete has increased a lot in retrospect. He now looks a lot better than he looked to us naive tennis fans back then. The goathood drug has truly left our systems now.
 
D

Dwell

Guest
Who’s in your basketball GOAT conversation?

How is he better than any of those guys?
I don't know enough about basketball history lol
I've been getting into US sports, lately, from watching Stephen A. and Shannon Sharpe clips on social media.
 
Top