Rafael Nadal: A Historical Perspective

[borg number one]

Recently, I read an excellent article in TennisNow Magazine by contributing writer Raymond Lee. The article, Rafael Nadal: A Historical Perspective, discusses Nadal's current place among all time great players.

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Featured-News/Rafael-Nadal--A-Historical-Perspective.aspx

Raymond Lee is a respected Tennis Historian, who has also written other excellent articles such as "The Natural: Remembering Pancho Gonzalez" and "Magnificent Seven: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History".

I enjoyed reading the article because it looks at the big picture, in terms of both majors won as well as all tournaments played. Note that a player's tournament "win rate" is determined by total tournaments won divided by total tournaments played. In the article, Mr. Lee compares the tournament win rates of truly great players. At 24 years of age, Nadal now stands behind only Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver in terms of overall win rate.

Meanwhile, in terms of "total tournaments won", he's still got some work to do in order to reach the very top. Nadal's overall record at such a young age is quite impressive, no matter how you analyze it. Yet, while we focus on the performance of players at the four majors, it's also useful and interesting to compare how these players have done overall at all tournaments played.

Open Era Tournament Win Rates
1. Bjorn Borg - 41.8%
2. Rod Laver - 38.5%
3. Rafael Nadal - 31.2%
4. Jimmy Connors - 31.2%
5. Ivan Lendl - 28.3%
6. Roger Federer- 27.9%
7. Ken Rosewall- 26.5%
8. Pete Sampras - 22.8%

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43


Key Excerpts:

Last month, Nadal defeated Novak Djokovic in four sets to win the US Open for the first time, completing the elusive career Grand Slam.

At the age of 24 years, 101 days, Nadal became just the seventh man in history to complete the career Grand Slam. Nadal is the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to win Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open in succession. He is the third youngest man to complete the career Grand Slam after Don Budge (22 years, 357 days) and Laver (24 years, 32 days).

Nadal is clearly already an all-time great and seems on his way to setting new records every other week. So how does Nadal, who is at perhaps the middle or even the early part of his career compare to some of the greats in tennis history at this point?

The World No. 1 has already accumulated some astonishing records but we must remember that tennis has been around for a long time and there have been thousands of superb players over the years at the top level. How does Nadal compare to legends like Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Tilden, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl and Budge at this stage?

As of early October, 2010 Nadal has already collected 43 tournaments in his career. The all-time leader is Rod Laver with an incredible 199 tournament victories in his career. Laver won these tournaments at an eye-popping .385 percentage.

To put that number in perspective, Nadal has won his 43 tournaments in 138 tournaments entered, a winning rate of .312, which is superb. Arch rival Federer has claimed 63 championships. Federer has won .279 percent of the tournaments he's entered. Hall of Famer Pete Sampras is ever so slightly ahead of Federer with 64 tournament wins in his career, winning .228 percent of his tournaments. So Rafa, while behind both of these legends in total tournaments won, is ahead of them in percentage of tournaments won to tournaments entered.

 

[meg0529]

This is really nice. Thanks for sharing!

 

[borg number one]

This is really nice. Thanks for sharing!

My pleasure meg0529. I'm glad you liked it.

 

[The-Champ]

There is no way Rafa will win the same number of tournaments Laver did. Pete's numbers (64) will be extremely difficult as well.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Wow, Borg was a machine! Why did he abruptly retire again?

If he played until he was 32, I'm sure he would have hit 20.

 

[The-Champ]

Wow, Borg was a machine! Why did he abruptly retire again?

If he played until he was 32, I'm sure he would have hit 20.

If Borg didn't retire prematurely, he could have achieved much more.

 

[meg0529]

There is no way Rafa will win the same number of tournaments Laver did. Pete's numbers (64) will be extremely difficult as well.

Ya, that's beast!

 

[borg number one]

If Borg didn't retire prematurely, he could have achieved much more.

I think that is true. Many wonder about this. His reasons for retiring are pretty complicated and I don't think even he knows exactly why he did it. The Tour was very different back in about 1981. I remember 1981-1982, when this issue was front and center and the big story in sports.

A big reason for Borg's retirement was that the Tour instituted a new rule around 1980-1981. If a player did not play at least 10 "official" tournaments during a year, he would have to play in the qualifying stages of major tourneys (such as Wimbledon). Well, by 1981, Borg had experienced a lot of success, having won at least one major for 8 straight years and having won a ton of matches/tourneys. He was also facing burnout, having faced off against many tough players and winning at a dizzying rate from his late teens.

So, he really wanted to cut back on his rigorous tournament schedule and focus on the majors and winning a US Open, etc, possibly for the rest of his career. He fought with Tour officials while he was contemplating his future. The Tour would not make an exception for Borg's unique situation. Borg, after taking a break in 1982, would have had to qualify at Wimbledon and elsewhere. He refused to do so, and he chose instead to retire. He was really quite a rebel when it came down to it.

In my opinion, he realized several years later, when it was much too late, that perhaps he should have not left so abruptly and somehow reached a compromise with the Tour. I think that's a big reason for some of the personal problems he experienced when he no longer had tennis.

Yet, at least we all had the pleasure of seeing Borg play from his teenage years until his mid-20's. In my opinion, the Tour should have been more understanding of Borg's unique track record, if in fact they were rigidly insisting on Borg qualifying at majors. I think, if the Tour had been less rigid, and he could have cut back for a while and say, took a 4-6 month vacation to recharge his batteries a bit, he may very well have stayed on to try and add majors especially.

 

[Bud]

There is no way Rafa will win the same number of tournaments Laver did. Pete's numbers (64) will be extremely difficult as well.

IIRC, many of those tournaments from players like Laver and Connors were non-ATP.

At the current rate, Nadal will pass both Federer and Sampras for tournament wins.

 

[borg number one]

I think Tennis photos really help to remind us of the greatness and dedication of these players. Those total tournament numbers are mind boggling, given how hard these guys work on court. To win pro tourneys against the best in the world, or even amateur tourneys pre-Open era requires tremendous dedication, effort and sacrifice. I like this portion of the article.

The World No. 1 has already accumulated some astonishing records but we must remember that tennis has been around for a long time and there have been thousands of superb players over the years at the top level. How does Nadal compare to legends like Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Tilden, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl and Budge at this stage?

Tilden, Budge, & Gonzalez

 

[borg number one]

Rosewall, Laver, Connors, & Borg

 

[borg number one]

Sampras, Federer, & Nadal

 

[borg number one]

Ya, that's beast!

Laver's total is wild, you're right. Laver won about 200 total tournaments (199)! I think Nadal may very well win 60+ tournaments though. It would be interesting to compare how many total tournaments were typically played by players in years past versus the players of the modern era. Were there previously more opportunities and how did total tournaments available for players vary over time? I also think that Nadal may very well maintain a extremely good "win rate".

 

[jack_kramer]

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43

Interesting article but the author omits the fact that most of these were mickey mouse tournaments with exceptionally weak fields (some with only 16 man draws). Oftentimes they didn't have to face a decent opponent until the final and thus were able rack up incredible numbers.

In addition, astronomical increases in prize-money (and endorsements) have driven the competition, athleticism, physicality, and technology (fitness and equipment) to new heights. In 1969 the Wimbledon mens singles champion won a paltry 3,000 pounds. By 1984 it was 100,000 pounds and in 2001 500,000 pounds. Today it's a staggering 1,000,000 pounds. Follow the money.

 

[borg number one]

Jack Kramer, while there have been many advancements and changes in the Game, some things like true greatness in terms of tennis talent don't change very much from era to era. These greats are nothing like the "average" player of the time. They are all revolutionaries, in that they push and pull the Game into unchartered waters.

There's a lot to be said of how tough guys like Laver and co. were, playing as intensely as they did, facing incredible competition and all for the sheer love of the Game really. In that way, many of those players were tougher competitors than most of the pros today. For example, when it comes right down to it, players like Murray and Djokovic are not in the same league as Laver and Borg in terms of sheer tennis ability. Also, even many small draw tourneys in decades past included extremely tough players (See Laver's foes), who would play at 100% whether they were playing for a beer, $0, or $1 million. I do agree that money has allowed for many advancements in training, etc. Yet, at the same time, it's important to remember just how amazing athletes like Borg and Lendl were even without all the "modern trappings". I agree that with the increased international reach of the Game, there is more overall depth, but competition at the very top is a different matter. For example, the top 10 in about 1980 was extremely tough.

 

[jack_kramer]

Jack Kramer, while there have been many advancements and changes in the Game, some things like true greatness in terms of tennis talent don't change very much from era to era. These greats are nothing like the "average" player of the time. They are all revolutionaries, in that they push and pull the Game into unchartered territory. There's a lot to be said of how tough guys like Laver and co. were, playing as intensely as they did, facing incredible competition and all for the sheer love of the Game really. In that way, many of those players were tougher competitors than many of the pros today. For example, when it comes right down to it, players like Murray and Djokovic are not in the same league as Laver and Borg in terms of sheer tennis ability.

Excellent points and I agree 100%. Truly great champions are transcendent and can come from any era :smile: . The only point I was trying to make was that it's unfair to compare modern players to those of the past using the # of tournaments won statistic.

 

[Dilettante]

Interesting article but the author omits the fact that most of these were mickey mouse tournaments with exceptionally weak fields (some with only 16 man draws). Oftentimes they didn't have to face a decent opponent until the final and thus were able rack up incredible numbers.

Yes, it's kind of funny that people talks a lot about "weak competition" here, "weak competition" there, but it doesn't seem to apply to the weakest competition era by far, that is the pre-Open era. I'll say more: in those years, some major tennis school systems (such as Spain's) didn't even exist and those which existed were much less developed, resulting in a much lesser number of trained players.

He also omits the most important fact that three out of four majors were played on the same surface, which made it easier for a specialist (specially grass specialist) to win many majors than today.

Honestly, pre-Open tennis and Open tennis are almost like two different sports. That's why I consider the likes of Federer, Borg, Sampras as the standard, not Gonzales, Rosewall or even Laver. I don't know how would they have performed in Open era, but I know that for example Federer's challenges are something none of those old players had to face during their careers: clay, grass, slow HC, fast HC, more professional tournament rules and a plethora of well trained rival players.

Author needs to ask himself: if majors were always been played on the actual surfaces, how would those old players perform on all four? If tournaments had the same format like nowadays, what would those old players' records have been? If there had been a similar number and level of well prepared tennis players battling each other like today, how would those old players have dealt with competition?

I know the word Preopentard isn't much used around here, but maybe it's time to.

 

[borg number one]

Excellent points and I agree 100%. Truly great champions are transcendent and can come from any era :smile: . The only point I was trying to make was that it's unfair to compare modern players to those of the past using the # of tournaments won statistic.

Thanks JK. Well, cross era comparisons are always tricky aren't they? Getting an apples to apples comparison is tough and nearly always impossible. I do think it's another important piece of information to look at though. Only looking at 4 tourneys a year ignores how a player performed week in and week out. The majors are critical of course, no argument there.

 

[jack_kramer]

Yes, it's kind of funny that people talks a lot about "weak competition" here, "weak competition" there, but it doesn't seem to apply to the weakest competition era by far, that is the pre-Open era. I'll say more: in those years, some major tennis school systems (such as Spain's) didn't even exist and those which existed were much less developed, resulting in a much lesser number of trained players.

He also omits the most important fact that three out of four majors were played on the same surface, which made it easier for a specialist (specially grass specialist) to win many majors than today.

Honestly, pre-Open tennis and Open tennis are almost like two different sports. That's why I consider the likes of Federer, Borg, Sampras as the standard, not Gonzales, Rosewall or even Laver. I don't know how would they have performed in Open era, but I know that for example Federer's challenges are something none of those old players had to face during their careers: clay, grass, slow HC, fast HC, more professional tournament rules and a plethora of well trained rival players.

Author needs to ask himself: if majors were always been played on the actual surfaces, how would those old players perform on all four? If tournaments had the same format like nowadays, what would those old players' records have been? If there had been a similar number and level of well prepared tennis players battling each other like today, how would those old players have dealt with competition?

I know the word Preopentard isn't much used around here, but maybe it's time to.

Good points. The author puts too much emphasis on raw data and in the process overly simplifies things. I wish he would have delved more into the historical context and fleshed out the statistics a bit better.

 

[jack_kramer]

Thanks JK. Well, cross era comparisons are always tricky aren't they? Getting an apples to apples comparison is tough and nearly always impossible.

Indeed they are.

Just because, only looking at 4 tourneys a year ignores how a player performed week in and week out. The majors are critical of course, no argument there.

Agreed. There are so many other factors involved and none of us has perfect information regarding the different eras and circumstances. It does make for interesting discussion/conjecture

 

[urban]

Raymond Lee wrote several articles on tennis week online, maybe the best webline on tennis, which sadly is gone from the internet. Collaborating with experts like Robert Geist, he always brings in a broader perspective on the game. The numbers of course don't tell the whole story, if we compare different eras. We have to contextualize them. That works in both ways. The pro majors (3 every year) are not identical with the Grand Slam majors, but for some time - between 1948 and 1967 - the Wembley tournament in particular was the real World Championship of the era, and not Wimbledon. The older players played (and won) more tournaments than modern players, but far fewer Grand Slam majors. So the percentage of tournaments resp. majors played and won is worth to be noted. Tilden won 10 out of 23 played, Borg 11 out of 27 played. Laver in the 60s, in his ten years prime, won 11 out of 19 played, banned for 21 majors in his best 5 years. Rosewall was out of the majors for 11 years, Gonzalez even longer. What they would have ammassed in open competition, is speculative, but from the real won majors in open competition since 1968 we can assume, that they would have won around 20 majors. So while the total numbers are not an absolute indication of a players rank in history, also the pure majors numbers are not an absolute parameter. It is also noteworthy, that players like Laver or Rosewall won tons of Master-like events (with great and big 32 or 64 draws), even in open competition, when past their primes.

 

[Xemi666]

Wow, Borg was a machine! Why did he abruptly retire again?

If he played until he was 32, I'm sure he would have hit 20.

Or maybe he wouldn't have won anything more, you're just speculating.

 

[borg number one]

Urban, great post. Thanks very much for your excellent perspective on this topic and the author Mr. Lee Urban. I agree, this broad perspective on Tennis is often lacking. It is very important to recall and note the context of each player's accomplishments.

 

[borg number one]

Or maybe he wouldn't have won anything more, you're just speculating.

That's true, we'll never know how things would have gone for Borg during say 1982 forward. He would have been 25+ years of age competing for majors. Would he and others have started playing the AO Open again? Would he have added FO/Wimbledon/US Open titles? Look at the champions of those tourneys in 1982-1985. He may have won no more majors, but I tend to think he would have likely added some more. One thing is for certain, even what he accomplished until age 25, through 1981 is stunning. He accomplished enough by then to be considered an all time great players. His total wins, total tourneys won, GS winning %, overall singles winning &, majors won, are all staggering.

 

[vllaznia]

That's true, we'll never know how things would have gone for Borg during say 1982 forward. He would have been 25+ years of age competing for majors. Would he and others have started playing the AO Open again? Would he have added FO/Wimbledon/US Open titles? Look at the champions of those tourneys in 1982-1985. He may have won no more majors, but I tend to think he would have likely added some more. One thing is for certain, even what he accomplished until age 25, through 1981 is stunning. He accomplished enough by then to be considered an all time great players. His total wins, total tourneys won, GS winning %, overall singles winning &, majors won, are all staggering.

That not very accurate i think, he has this percentages when he was at his prime, if he had continued playing like Connors at the age of 40 he would not have those winning % even if he had 20 slams won.

 

[Xemi666]

That not very accurate i think, he has this percentages when he was at his prime, if he had continued playing like Connors at the age of 40 he would not have those winning % even if he had 20 slams won.

Yes, the longer you play the worse your percentages will be, that's inevitable.

 

[Dilettante]

Laver in the 60s, in his ten years prime, won 11 out of 19 played, banned for 21 majors in his best 5 years.

If the best player of the world at the moment couldn't play "majors" for five years because he was a professional, go figure the magnitude of those "majors" when compared with today's majors.

What they would have ammassed in open competition, is speculative, but from the real won majors in open competition since 1968 we can assume, that they would have won around 20 majors.

As the article, you fall yet again in the same logical trap: considering pre-Open majors as being of the same magnitude that Open Era majors or somewhat comparable. When in fact they were much weaker tournaments overall.

Even in the beggining of the Open Era, some majors -as the AO- were not that "major".

 

[pc1]

That not very accurate i think, he has this percentages when he was at his prime, if he had continued playing like Connors at the age of 40 he would not have those winning % even if he had 20 slams won.

Actually Borg retired in his prime. It's very possible that his percentage numbers would have gone up for a number of years and then went down. Either way his percentage numbers are higher than Nadal's and Federer's by a good margin at a comparable age. And his numbers were superior to Connors at the same age.

 

[borg number one]

That not very accurate i think, he has this percentages when he was at his prime, if he had continued playing like Connors at the age of 40 he would not have those winning % even if he had 20 slams won.

Even at 25, winning 11/27 (he won or made the finals in 16/27!) and having the best overall win % at the majors and overall in singles matches is extremely impressive. The only GS finals he lost were to guys named either Connors or McEnroe.

For example, look at Nadal, Federer, or Sampras at 25. Borg's track record by 25 still looks very impressive even when you remove those later years from other players and make it more of a "apples to apples" comparison. Borg won well over 600 matches by 25 (ATP site, perhaps not inclusive of many tourneys played), so though he retired young, he had already won plenty.

 

[borg number one]

Actually Borg retired in his prime. It's very possible that his percentage numbers would have gone up for a number of years and then went down. Either way his percentage numbers are higher than Nadal's and Federer's by a good margin at a comparable age. And his numbers were superior to Connors at the same age.

Exactly PC1. This is important to take note of. If you see how Borg could play even in 1982, that is very clear. He was not physically spent, that was sure.

As for Nadal, his great results thus far have occurred by age 24, so it'll be interesting to see whether he goes on and wins at a great clip from say 24-30. I tend to think he will, thereby significantly adding to both his major total as total tournaments won.

 

[aphex]

I've read far better "historical perspectives" and analyses in the Former Pro subforum..

 

[borg number one]

I've read far better "historical perspectives" and analyses in the Former Pro subforum..

I thought it was quite well done. Besides the analysis of all tournaments and tournaments won, the pace of Nadal's winning is properly put in context. In the end, I don't see anything to dispute in terms of the numbers. One could compare/contrast different eras, but the numbers are what they are. Then, as far as the analysis of the data, I actually think the author's analysis is quite good. To cover this much ground, while discussing many greats is no easy task. I agree with this view of Nadal from the author.

The most remarkable feature of Rafael Nadal to me is not necessarily his astounding error free powerful topspin baseline game but his relentless work ethic and his ability to improve. From a subjective point of view he has improved his serve (which used to be timed in the low 100 mile per hour range) where it is now a major weapon, often being timed in the 130 plus mile per hour range. He has made his backhand so strong that it is considered by many about as strong as his great forehand. Nadal’s volley is now very strong and is considered one of the best in the game. His stamina, speed and will to win have rarely been surpassed in tennis history. Rafa seems to be a player without weakness. There seems to be no obvious areas to attack unlike many other all time greats. And of course he is a left hander, always an advantage.

Who knows what Rafael Nadal can do in the future?

Of course it has to be tough to accomplish things in tennis that only the greats have done and try to surpass them. The odds are always stacked against a player who wants to be considered among the immortals of tennis. You cannot tell what will happen. Injuries are always a danger and there are other factors that may get in Nadal's way of course.

I for one would not be surprised if years from now when we discuss the Greatest Ever in tennis, that Rafael Nadal is one of the names that quickly come to mind.

 

[vllaznia]

Even at 25, winning 11/27 and having the best overall win % at the majors and overall in singles matches is extremely impressive. For example, look at Nadal, Federer, or Sampras at 25. Borg's track record by 25 still looks very impressive even when you remove those later years from other players and make it more of a "apples to apples" comparison. The guy won well over 600 matches by 25 (ATP site, perhaps not inclusive of many tourneys played), so though he retired young, he had already won plenty.

I am not saying that is not very impressive, its just unfair to compare the win % of Borg with the other players that have played after their 30's. Do you think that Borg would have had the same win % even he had played after his 30's?

 

[urban]

I don't see logical flaws in my previous post. If there were no amateur paragraph and open competition in tennis since the 30s, as it was in golf, the majors like Wimbledon or US or French would have the status of real majors. The pro players mentioned were banned due to the only amateur rule for great parts of their career. They easily would have made around 20 majors, considering their wins in amateur majors before their prime and especially their success in open majors late in their careers. And that they didn't stop to play tennis in this interregnum, is easily detectable on their massive successes on the pro tour, with the best competition around. And for the depth of the draws, look at the draws of the early open Wimbledons, which were filled with legendary players of Hall of Fame status, and had - relatively- far better players in the top twenty than today. A guy like Verdasco isn't in the same class as people like Stolle or Ralston or Pilic or Roger Taylor, who were in the top fifteen to twenty then.

 

[borg number one]

I am not saying that is not very impressive, its just unfair to compare the win % of Borg with the other players that have played after their 30's. Do you think that Borg would have had the same win % even he had played after his 30's?

Ok, but it is fair to compare him to others at 25 isn't it? He is still right at the top when you do that. Now, looking at numbers after 30 strikes me as entirely different. Winning a lot after age 30 would be very tough for any player, while winning at 26-30 is somewhat more practical. It's all speculation, that's true, but you've raised the issue of his numbers possibly declining. They may have, but but how much probably?

What's interesting is that if you do the math, assuming that he would have curtailed his schedule somewhat, given all the matches he already had under his belt, when you actually run the numbers, assuming he cut back on matches somewhat, he would have to lose quite a bit and pretty early in majors before his percentages dropped markedly. If he played from say 26-30, he would have likely played less than in years past, so each successive year would not necessarily take his percentages down very much. After 30, then he'd really be pushing it as far as trying to maintain the very best percentages. Even by 25, Borg had 8+ years of heavy match play.

 

[vllaznia]

Ok, but it is fait to compare him to others at 25 isn't it? He is still right at the top when you do that. Now, looking at numbers after 30 strikes me as entirely different. Winning a lot after age 30 would be very tough for any player, while winning at 26-30 is somewhat more practical. It's all speculation, that's true, but you've raised the issue of his numbers possibly declining. They may have, but but how much probably?

What's interesting is that if you do the math, assuming that he would have curtailed his schedule somewhat, given all the matches he already had under his belt, when you actually run the numbers, assuming he cut back on matches somewhat, he would have to lose quite a bit and pretty early in majors before his percentages dropped markedly. If he played from say 26-30, he would have likely played less than in years past, so each successive year would not necessarily take his percentages down very much. After 30, then he'd really be pushing it as far as trying to maintain the very best percentages. Even by 25, Borg had 8+ years of heavy match play.

I think that Borg if had continued playing even after his 30's he would still have the best win % because he would had to do very poorly in order to low his win % my point was just that is just unfair to compare Borg with the other players in this particular statistic.

 

[jackson vile]

Wow, that puts Laver and Borg's accomplishments into perspective. Especially Borg who's career was cut way short, that is why Borg and Laver are GOAT!

 

[borg number one]

Wow, that puts Laver and Borg's accomplishments into perspective. Especially Borg who's career was cut way short, that is why Borg and Laver are GOAT!

Jackson Vile, they are definitely two of the greatest tennis players to have ever played the Game. In my opinion, they'll both be considered "all time greats" as long as professional Tennis is around. I think with that 1-2 punch of Laver and then later Borg, professional tennis really took off. That's especially true because along with Laver in the early 70's, you had Connors making a big impression on the Game, along with Borg, Vilas and McEnroe as well.

Later in the late 70's-early 1980's you had a quickly emerging Ivan Lendl. So with such great players, especially with Laver and then Borg in the late 1970's-1981 setting the tone, professional Tennis really took off. That's why the late 1970's especially has been called a Golden Era in Tennis. For the ladies, you had King, Goolagong, Wade, Evert and Navratilova, so with all those players competing, it really created a great atmosphere for fascinating matches and tournaments.

There was so much synergy and intensity in the rivalries among great players. In the U.S. for example, public courts were always full and tennis players were treated as huge celebrities. The Sport has become more internationalized now and money has flown into it with greater commercialization, but both Laver and Borg were absolutely instrumental in bringing the Game to where it is today. They are both revered players and even players as great as Nadal and Federer have tremendous respect for them.

 

[pc1]

I think that Borg if had continued playing even after his 30's he would still have the best win % because he would had to do very poorly in order to low his win % my point was just that is just unfair to compare Borg with the other players in this particular statistic.

Borg just before he retired was winning tournaments at a very high percentage rate for years, far more than than sixty percent. I would tend to think that Borg's percentage numbers would go up for a while and if he continued to play, probably go down slowly. The 41.8% number is superb for any age and it's very possible if he played to 35 or so that it may have been around there for a lifetime mark.

 

[aceX]

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43

I was just wondering, has anyone done an analysis of Rod Laver's titles?
What I mean is for each of those titles go through and assign a modern-day ATP score based on the ranking of the players in the tournaments (whether they be amateur or pro rankings)?

 

[Bud]

I was just wondering, has anyone done an analysis of Rod Laver's titles?
What I mean is for each of those titles go through and assign a modern-day ATP score based on the ranking of the players in the tournaments (whether they be amateur or pro rankings)?

Many of the old-timers tournament wins were either non-ATP or mickey mouse type draws... thus the insanely high numbers.

It's nearly impossible to reach numbers like those with the current tour structure.

 

[single_handed_champion]

Yes, it's kind of funny that people talks a lot about "weak competition" here, "weak competition" there, but it doesn't seem to apply to the weakest competition era by far, that is the pre-Open era. I'll say more: in those years, some major tennis school systems (such as Spain's) didn't even exist and those which existed were much less developed, resulting in a much lesser number of trained players.

I thought the stats in the original post were all OPEN Era numbers?

Anyway, 199 is just downright INSANE (anything above 100 is)! Even if he played 20 years, that is an average of 10 tournament wins a year!! I suppose the draws were smaller, but did the system of defending champion into the final exist in the Open Era?

Also, not only do we have grass being the default surface favoring the grasscourters, but it promotes far fewer injuries as well.

 

[borg number one]

Many of the old-timers tournament wins were either non-ATP or mickey mouse type draws... thus the insanely high numbers.

It's nearly impossible to reach numbers like those with the current tour structure.

I agree that it is nearly impossible to reach those numbers given the current tour structure (how many possible tourneys are there now and where are they as far as scheduling, etc. compared to say the 1950's-1970's?). Yet, I wouldn't say that Laver played in a bunch of "mickey mouse" tourneys. He had to win those tourneys against the likes of so, winning even a small tournament with a 16 or 32 draw was still very tough. He often had to face down players such as Rosewall, Sedgman and Gonzalez while winning them.

 

[pc1]

I'm not sure if it is impossible to win large amounts of tournaments nowadays. There seems to be a lot of tournaments over the course of a year and I think a lot of the reasons a player like Laver won a lot of tournaments in a year is besides that he was a great player was he entered a lot of tournaments. Even Vilas in 1977 won 17 tournaments. The reason is that Vilas entered 33 tournaments that year.

As far as Laver winning so called Mickey Mouse tournaments, Borg Number One already mentioned the legendary fields he played against but here are his tournament wins in the Open Era alone. Bear in mind Laver was 30 or over most of this time and was probably over the hill. Laver is born in 1938.

1968-12 tournaments won out of 27-Won Wimbledon, was in finals of French Open.
1969-18 tournaments won out of 32-Grand Slam Year
1970-15 tournaments won out of 29
1971-7 tournaments won out of 26-Won Italian Open
1972-5 tournaments won out of 22
1973-7 tournaments won out of 23
1974-6 tournaments won out of 15
1975-5 tournaments won out of 18
1976-1 tournament won out of 12
1977-0 tournaments won out of 8
1978-0 tournaments won out of 3
1979-0 tournaments won out of 1

So Rod Laver "only won" 76 tournaments in the Open Era plus a Grand Slam. Notice the first three years of the Open Era. Laver won 45 tournaments in the first three years out of 88 entered. That's over fifty percent of the tournaments he entered that he won and he averaged winning 15 tournaments a year. I see no reason if Laver was younger and in his prime that he couldn't continue that pace for many years.

So I think if Laver won 76 tournaments, mostly pass his prime in the Open Era, it may be reasonable to think he could have won 100 tournaments pre prime and during his prime if Open Tennis was always around.

Laver won a lot of tournaments because he was great and entered a lot of tournaments. I think the key elements are quality play and a lot of tournament activity.

Nowadays they make a lot of money and can afford to take breaks and rest.

I was looking at the ATP schedule for this year and it seems to me that there is a tournament virtually every week until December. That's a lot a potential tournaments a top player can enter if they want to. So I think it's possible for a top player who plays a heavy schedule to win a lot of tournaments. Is it advisable? Who knows? I would think a player who plays a heavy schedule is subjecting themselves to potential injuries and their winning percentages would tend to be lower.

 

[pc1]

Here are some players who won a large amount of tournaments just in the Open era.

I mentioned Vilas who won 17 in 1977.
Nastase won 15 in 1973
Connors won 14 in 1974
Connors won 13 in 1976
Connors won 14 in 1978
McEnroe won 10 in 1979
McEnroe won 13 in 1984

Borg had a number of years with over 10 tournaments won but he won 21 in 1979.

Lendl won 16 tournaments in 1982 among his many huge tournament years.

Most of this is from the Collins Encyclopedia.

 

[Bud]

Here are some players who won a large amount of tournaments just in the Open era.

I mentioned Vilas who won 17 in 1977.
Nastase won 15 in 1973
Connors won 14 in 1974
Connors won 13 in 1976
Connors won 14 in 1978
McEnroe won 10 in 1979
McEnroe won 13 in 1984

Borg had a number of years with over 10 tournaments won but he won 21 in 1979.

Lendl won 16 tournaments in 1982 among his many huge tournament years.

Most of this is from the Collins Encyclopedia.

However, even the highest open era achiever (Lendl) would have had to win 16 in a row for 12 consecutive years to equal Laver's total number. He won 16 tournaments only one year.

That's how we know there is a huge difference.

 

[pc1]

However, even the highest open era achiever (Lendl) would have had to win 16 in a row for 12 consecutive years to equal Laver's total number. He won 16 tournaments only one year.

That's how we know there is a huge difference.

Lendl won 146 for his career. That's not bad either.

Connors won 149 for his career.

I think it possible but it's tough. You have to play a lot and win a lot. And that may cause injuries. That's why players like Lendl, Connors and Laver were so great.

 

[Bud]

Lendl won 146 for his career. That's not bad either.

Connors won 149 for his career.

I think it possible but it's tough. You have to play a lot and win a lot. And that may cause injuries. That's why players like Lendl, Connors and Laver were so great.

Were those all ATP titles or exhibition, etc.?

 

[pc1]

Were those all ATP titles or exhibition, etc.?

I know a lot of them was WTC tournaments in which the ATP didn't count and some were tournament like the Pepsi I believe (I know they count the Pepsi now but I mean "like the Pepsi.") and some of those tournaments for Connors was on the Bill Riordan circuit.

Connors officially has 109 tournaments won in the ATP.

Anyway, that's beside the point. My point is that I think it's possible to win a lot of tournaments in a year and for many years but there is no need to now because of the huge sums of money.

I think guys like Laver and Rosewall had sort of working class mentalities in which they went to work every day, in this case their work was tennis. It was a different time but it still doesn't mean players can't win a lot of tournaments.

 

[DMan]

Recently, I read a excellent article in TennisNow Magazine by contributing writer Raymond Lee. The article, Rafael Nadal: A Historical Perspective, discusses Nadal's current place among all time great players.

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Featured-News/Rafael-Nadal--A-Historical-Perspective.aspx

Raymond Lee is a respected Tennis Historian, who has also written other excellent articles such as "The Natural: Remembering Pancho Gonzalez" and "Magnificent Seven: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History".

I enjoyed reading the article because it looks at the big picture, in terms of both majors won as well as all tournaments played. Note that a player's tournament "win rate" is determined by total tournaments won divided by total tournaments played. In the article, Mr. Lee compares the tournament win rates of truly great players. At 24 years of age, Nadal now stands behind only Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver in terms of overall win rate.

Meanwhile, in terms of "total tournaments won", he's still got some work to do in order to reach the very top. Nadal's overall record at such a young age is quite impressive, no matter how you analyze it. Yet, while we focus on the performance of players at the four majors, it's also useful and interesting to compare how these players have done overall at all tournaments played.

Open Era Tournament Win Rates
1. Bjorn Borg - 41.8%
2. Rod Laver - 38.5%
3. Rafael Nadal - 31.2%
4. Jimmy Connors - 31.2%
5. Ivan Lendl - 28.3%
6. Roger Federer- 27.9%
7. Ken Rosewall- 26.5%
8. Pete Sampras - 22.8%

Total Tournaments Won
1. Rod Laver - 199
2. Bill Tilden - 161
3. Jimmy Connors - 149
4. Ivan Lendl - 146
5. Ken Rosewall- 136
6. Bjorn Borg - 105
7. Pete Sampras - 64
8. Roger Federer- 63
9. Rafael Nadal - 43


Key Excerpts:

Unfortunately, Mr Lee still doesn't get it with regards to official records. He used quote marks to note Federer has the "official" record as far as # of majors won. Mr Lee at el - NO QUOTE MARKS NEED APPLY.

Roger Federer has the OFFICIAL record for # of majors won.

The "majors" - and YES MR. Lee's interpretations do need quote marks - he references for Rosewall and Laver were professional events. As hard as Mr. Lee tries to make them majors, well, they just aren't. Period. Bottom Line. End of story discussion.

Mr. Lee is also fixated on the percentage rate for # of tournaments won. It's an interesting stat, but one he likes to flaunt since Borg - the guy he considers the best of all-time, has a high rate since Borg up and quit the game at age 25 - and didn't put himself on the line past his prime the way everyone else did.

Also, Lee is smoking crack, or can't do simple arithmetic, if he is still listing Connors with 149 tournament titles won, and Lendl with 146 and Borg with 105. Unless he's adding junior tournaments? Or fantasy events?