The Slam Record -what's going on?

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
If you could give just one reason why the slam record is being smashed beyond all recognition by, not one, but three players -at the same time -what would it be?

What is the ONE overarching explanation for such an unprecedented occurrence?
 

CYGS

Hall of Fame
If you could give just one reason why the slam record is being smashed beyond all recognition by, not one, but three players -at the same time -what would it be?

What is the ONE overarching explanation for such an unprecedented occurrence?
Djokodal's desire to have the deserving one ending up as the GOAT. They are doing it for the justice and the history of the sport.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
The Major record is not smashed by anyone. It currently sits at 20.

As for the efforts of Nadal and Djokovic to best it: no younger ATGs answers the question about their (relative) success to reach it.

 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
The Major record is not smashed by anyone. It currently sits at 20.

As for the efforts of Nadal and Djokovic to best it: no younger ATGs answers the question about their (relative) success to reach it.

Federer was stopped by non-ATGs such as Kuerten at RG 2004, Safin at the AO 2005, Del Potro at the USO 2009 or Cilic at the USO 2014 (Federer was 33 at the USO 2014, same age as Nadal was when he won his 4th USO).

Fact is, Federer can only blame himself if he doesn't end up with the Slam record. He could have had 24 Slam right now, but he failed to win 4 Slams against non-ATGs (RG 2004, AO 2005, USO 2009, USO 2014).

If Nadal and/or Djokovic surpass Federer's Slam record it will be because they are more clutch than him against non-ATGs when they face them in a SF or final.
 

van_Loederen

Professional
poly strings seem like the main reason. they appear to separate (a certain set of) talent more while reducing diversity of styles.
they also contributed chiefly to the GAS (great age shift).

(this brings advantages, but also disadvantages for the sport.)
 
Last edited:

Druss

Hall of Fame
Federer was stopped by non-ATGs such as Kuerten at RG 2004, Safin at the AO 2005, Del Potro at the USO 2009 or Cilic at the USO 2014 (Federer was 33 at the USO 2014, same age as Nadal was when he won his 4th USO).

Fact is, Federer can only blame himself if he doesn't end up with the Slam record. He could have had 24 Slam right now, but he failed to win 4 Slams against non-ATGs (RG 2004, AO 2005, USO 2009, USO 2014).

If Nadal and/or Djokovic surpass Federer's Slam record it will be because they are more clutch than him against non-ATGs when they face them in a SF or final.
RG 2004, really?
Federer on clay 2004 = Nadal on HC 2005, give or take, so go figure.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Yes, there are other factors cited ad nauseum here (and some that even make sense) but the overarching reason is obvious:

Each of the Big 3 is remarkably talented, versatile, competitive and goal-oriented.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
If you could give just one reason why the slam record is being smashed beyond all recognition by, not one, but three players -at the same time -what would it be?

What is the ONE overarching explanation for such an unprecedented occurrence?
If you can indulge me I think the number one thing was a "perfect storm" of three significant factors that are inextricably linked:

1. An era of players who are extremely skilled across the three main surfaces

2. A softening of the extremes of difference in the three main surfaces

3. The previously-unseen consistency of the big 3

The best players were REALLY able to feast because they were a chance at every single major. All are incredibly adept on all surfaces, and there is no doubt they had some help with a general change towards lessening the contrast between surfaces (although I hate the simplistic argument of homogenisation because it doesn't give credit to the adaptability of this generation).

Even with Nadal dominating clay, Djokovic and Fed still had a chance at RG because all three are so great on clay. And all three were always possibilities at the other three majors, too.

To a lesser extent, I think parity in the four majors also had a lot to do with it, but this was not unique to this era, and was probably more of a factor in Pete making his milestones (a fourth major to focus on in lieu of three)
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
RG 2004, really?
Federer on clay 2004 = Nadal on HC 2005, give or take, so go figure.
The equivalent would be USO 2008 Nadal. Federer was 22 years old at RG 2004, just like Nadal was 22 years old at the USO 2008. Nadal was already at his best on hard at the USO 2008, just like Federer was already at his best on clay at RG 2004. Nadal was stopped by a well-playing Murray at the USO 2008, and Federer was stopped by a well-playing Kuerten at RG 2004. No need for excuses in either case. Being at your best doesn't mean that you are unbeatable (no one is).

In 2004 Federer had one of the best season of his career and was at his absolute peak. He won 3 of 4 Slams, and won 2 titles on clay, including the prestigious Hamburg Masters.
 
Last edited:

sp1derman

Semi-Pro
If you could give just one reason why the slam record is being smashed beyond all recognition by, not one, but three players -at the same time -what would it be?

What is the ONE overarching explanation for such an unprecedented occurrence?
Technology (healthcare) or Money....
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
The equivalent would be USO 2008 Nadal. Federer was 22 years old at RG 2004, just like Nadal was 22 years old at the USO 2008. Nadal was already at his best on hard at the USO 2008, just like Federer was already at his best on clay at RG 2004. Nadal was just stopped by a well-playing Murray at the USO 2008, just like Federer was stopped by a well-playing Kuerten. No need for excuses in either case. Being at your best doesn't mean that you are unbeatable (no one is).

In 2004 Federer had one of the best season of his career and was at his absolute peak. He won 3 of 4 Slams, and won 2 titles on clay, including the prestigious Hamburg Masters.
Why do you keep pointing out their ages as though every player peaks or declines at the same age? Nadal at 19 and 20 was a far better player than what Federer was at the same age. Nadal on HC in 2005 won 2 prestigious Masters events beating an ATG in the final of one, plus he also won Beijing and stretched Fed to 5 in one of his most successful tournaments (Dubai). No excuses...Fed was not as good on clay as he was on HC/grass in 2004. Just like Nadal was not as good on HC in say 2007 as he was on grass/clay. Besides in 2004 there were some other great clay-courters....Coria comes to mind.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Federer overtook Sampras. Now perhaps Nadal will overtake Federer and then perhaps Djokovic overtakes Nadal. This happens in sports. Younger athletes want to become better than those before them.
It hasn't happened in the entire history of tennis before that three players have all broken the previous record within the space of a few years. So, I'm afraid "this happens in sports" is not the answer.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
It hasn't happened in the entire history of tennis before that three players have all broken the previous record within the space of a few years. So, I'm afraid "this happens in sports" is not the answer.
List the record holders in the Majors at the time of emerging of new records and who was the new record holder.

 
Well two reasons really.

1. Physical spect.
Great players of the past simply broke down physically at a really young age. Many were pretty much done after their mid twentees, only very few could sustain their physicality into their 30s. Today players can keep a high level well into their thirtees, hence the great players have a lot more shots at winning slams.

2. Stabilty of the game.
Another important issue. Tennis and Tennis technology has not radically changed over the last 20 years anymore. Of course there is still evolution but nothing revolutionary anymore. That had always been a lot different in the past. Between 1970 and mid late 90s there were always radical improvements.
Imagine if the big three grew up playing with wooden rackets. They surely wouldn`t be dominating in their late 30s with modern rackets against young players who grew up with modern rackets.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
If Nadal and/or Djokovic surpass Federer's Slam record it will be because they are more clutch than him against non-ATGs when they face them in a SF or final.
No, they both have lost against non-ATG opponents at Slams multiple times. If they beat Federer in the Slam race it’s because of the H2H wins against Federer. As nonsensical as H2H discussions are if someone wants to give it more value than the total numbers, the H2H matches are important because they influence the total number.

Would Federer have a respectable H2H against both of them he would have a big lead in the Slam race because he is much better against the field. That he still leads with such H2H numbers is the undeniable proof for that.
 
Last edited:

ibbi

Legend
1. Homogenization of the game via surfaces and strings and whatnot.

2. Better athletes, longer careers.

3. The overall slam count actually being a thing like it was to nowhere near the same degree before Sampras came along. It was about how many Wimbledons you have, how many US Opens you have, etc.

4. Australia now being a full time, worthwhile gig. Until the 80s dudes - Mats, Ivan, Boris and Stefan made it a thing the number of non-Australians who even went to that event was minor and inconsistent.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
List the record holders in the Majors at the time of emerging of new records and who was the new record holder.

Double Digit Slam History

1930 (10 titles) Bill Tilden

1967 New Record (11 titles) Roy Emerson
(record broken 37 years after Tilden)
1967 final total (12 titles)

*1969 Rod Laver (11) also surpassed Tilden's total to become 2nd all-time

*1981 Bjorn Borg (11) equalled Laver to move into Joint 2nd all-time

2000 New Record (13 titles) Pete Sampras
(33 years after Emerson)
2002 -final total (14)

2009 New Record (15 titles) Roger Federer
(7 years after Sampras)
2018 -current total (20)

*2017 Rafa Nadal (15) also surpassed Sampras's total to become 2nd all-time
2019 -current total (19)

*2019 Novak Djokovic (15) also surpassed Sampras's total to become third all-time
2020 -current total (17)

2018 -20 titles Federer
2019 -19 titles Nadal
2020 -17 titles Djokovic
2002 -14 titles Sampras
1967 -12 titles Emerson
1969 -11 titles Laver
1981 -11 titles Borg
1930 -10 titles Tilden
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
When’s the last time a young player broke through to win a slam vs the big 3? Del Potro in 2009?

There’s your answer.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
If you can indulge me I think the number one thing was a "perfect storm" of three significant factors that are inextricably linked:

1. An era of players who are extremely skilled across the three main surfaces

2. A softening of the extremes of difference in the three main surfaces

3. The previously-unseen consistency of the big 3
Plus,
4. An entire era with younger players lacking similar levels of talent or skill to challenge these "Big Three."
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Records are being broken in sports all the time, often by more than one person. In football we see both Brees and Brady running neck and neck for the touchdown pass record they just broke, and that's a record set just a few years earlier by Peyton Manning. Today's sports section heralds Ovechkin's 700th NHL goal and his prospects for breaking Gretzky's goal record. In the NBA Lebron recently passed Kobe to take third place in points and has only Karl Malone and Kareem Jabbar ahead of him. World record for a marathon was broken just a year and half ago. Records are set and re-set all the time in many sports, tennis is no different. Only Cy Young is safe.
 

FedeRadi

New User
There are many reasons.
I think these are, in order, the most important:
1) Three best players of all time played in the same era. First of all, credit to Nole, Rafa and Federer.
2) Surface homogeinity. (Best players are better than others on all surfaces, so they can win more)
3) Longer careers due to better healthcare techniques.
 

PeoplesChamp

Professional
There are many reasons.
I think these are, in order, the most important:
1) Three best players of all time played in the same era. First of all, credit to Nole, Rafa and Federer.
2) Surface homogeinity. (Best players are better than others on all surfaces, so they can win more)
3) Longer careers due to better healthcare techniques.
4) Lost Gen & Next Gen

 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
1) Three best players of all time played in the same era. First of all, credit to Nole, Rafa and Federer.
(y)(y)(y)
2) Surface homogeinity. (Best players are better than others on all surfaces, so they can win more)
Rest of the tour having none of that homogenized success debunks this mantra. Tennis evolved and these 3 are cream of the crop and would be in any era.
3) Longer careers due to better healthcare techniques.
http://instagr.am/p/B8yBldEnTOx/
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Records are being broken in sports all the time, often by more than one person. In football we see both Brees and Brady running neck and neck for the touchdown pass record they just broke, and that's a record set just a few years earlier by Peyton Manning. Today's sports section heralds Ovechkin's 700th NHL goal and his prospects for breaking Gretzky's goal record. In the NBA Lebron recently passed Kobe to take third place in points and has only Karl Malone and Kareem Jabbar ahead of him. World record for a marathon was broken just a year and half ago. Records are set and re-set all the time in many sports, tennis is no different. Only Cy Young is safe.
Not true for tennis. Tilden's record stood for 37 years. Emerson's stood for 33 years.
 
Prime importance being given to the slam record as the determinant of GOAThood. Thus meaning that the top players of this era chase said record incessantly.

This was not the case for the likes of Gonzales (played on the pro tour and primarily to win the annual H2H tours), Laver (also played on the pro tour, and when the Open Era began, focused on the calendar slam) or Borg (the AO was irrelevant in his day).

Essentially the media since Sampras’ era have built up the slam count as the be all and end all. No wonder the greats are playing well into their 30s with an obsession to be top dog in this stat. Seen also with Serena’s interminable chase of Court in the women’s game.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Records are being broken in sports all the time, often by more than one person. In football we see both Brees and Brady running neck and neck for the touchdown pass record they just broke, and that's a record set just a few years earlier by Peyton Manning. Today's sports section heralds Ovechkin's 700th NHL goal and his prospects for breaking Gretzky's goal record. In the NBA Lebron recently passed Kobe to take third place in points and has only Karl Malone and Kareem Jabbar ahead of him. World record for a marathon was broken just a year and half ago. Records are set and re-set all the time in many sports, tennis is no different. Only Cy Young is safe.
Ovechkin still misses 194 goals, considering that he is 34 and averages at most 50 goals per season even in his prime this is no easy task. Apart from it he will never come close to breaking Gretzky’s point record, I think this one is truly safe. I also think Kareem is pretty safe.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Is there a single young player who only loses to big3?

Next gen are a complete joke. Career inflation era.
Exactly this is what those people don’t get who say well the big three are so extraordinary that they prevent the young guns from breaking through. How often have Zverev or Tsitsipas really lost to the big three in slams? Do they constantly reach Quarters and Semis. They are either losing to complete mugs or to the second tier players of the big three era long before they even reach Nadal, Federer or Djokovic.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Is there a single young player who only loses to big3?

Next gen are a complete joke. Career inflation era.
No, but all atg's losed to other players, not only to other atg's... If that wasn't the case we would already had 15-20 slams players in past..

Imagine tour without big 3... Who would take those 20 slams in last 5 years? Few players would stood and would have 3,4,5 slams and would be atg's in future...

Every decade had atg or two or three... Its 40 slams in game... This decade would have few atg's too, but big 3 were too big... Big 3 never happened begore, not because next generations were that bad, but because they were exceptionally great...
 

FedeRadi

New User
Rest of the tour having none of that homogenized success debunks this mantra. Tennis evolved and these 3 are cream of the crop and would be in any era.
This is interensting. I feel good players have homogeneized unsuccess because they're good but worst than big 3(4) on every surface.
With more different surface could be some specialists, who can be big 3 level on one surface but bad on the other two.
Obviously every player has a favorite surface. But watching to the second tier players of this era(Like Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga, Cilic, Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer, Nishikori) they're pretty good on every surface. The exception can be big servers like Anderson on clay(But, except for the two final-runs, his results at RG are not dissimilar from other slams).
I think that in the past there was more specialization, and a top player was not favorite versus a lesser one on every surface. But I haven't data at support, I'll check.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
No, but all atg's losed to other players, not only to other atg's... If that wasn't the case we would already had 15-20 slams players in past..

Imagine tour without big 3... Who would take those 20 slams in last 5 years? Few players would stood and would have 3,4,5 slams and would be atg's in future...

Every decade had atg or two or three... Its 40 slams in game... This decade would have few atg's too, but big 3 were too big... Big 3 never happened begore, not because next generations were that bad, but because they were exceptionally great...
Thiem is the only one potential breakthrough. No one else has shown that potential, take out big 3 and Del potro probably wins multiple slams in 2017-2018.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Thiem is the only one potential breakthrough. No one else has shown that potential, take out big 3 and Del potro probably wins multiple slams in 2017-2018.
Ok, split 40 slams without big 3, not names just number of slams for a player. There sure would be a least 2-3 players with 5,6,7 slams - usual atg's.... Big 3 stopped that to happen...
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Ok, split 40 slams without big 3, not names just number of slams for a player. There sure would be a least 2-3 players with 5,6,7 slams - usual atg's.... Big 3 stopped that to happen...
Since 2015 most slams would be won by Wawrinka, Murray, Del potro and Thiem.
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
This is interensting. I feel good players have homogeneized unsuccess because they're good but worst than big 3(4) on every surface.
With more different surface could be some specialists, who can be big 3 level on one surface but bad on the other two.
Obviously every player has a favorite surface. But watching to the second tier players of this era(Like Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga, Cilic, Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer, Nishikori) they're pretty good on every surface. The exception can be big servers like Anderson on clay(But, except for the two final-runs, his results at RG are not dissimilar from other slams).
I think that in the past there was more specialization, and a top player was not favorite versus a lesser one on every surface. But I haven't data at support, I'll check.
There was more specialization in the past for sure. But tennis evolved in every sense since then. Techniques, grips, technology, fitness.
 

Zara

Legend
If you could give just one reason why the slam record is being smashed beyond all recognition by, not one, but three players -at the same time -what would it be?

What is the ONE overarching explanation for such an unprecedented occurrence?
It is too good to be true.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Ok, split 40 slams without big 3, not names just number of slams for a player. There sure would be a least 2-3 players with 5,6,7 slams - usual atg's.... Big 3 stopped that to happen...
LOL.. No, it would be mayhem with all these players winning majors. See any ATG there ?? LMFAO

Thiem
Zverev
Tsitsipas
Nishikori
Raonic
Dmitrov
Fognini
Anderson
Isner
Cilic
Delpo
Wawrinka
Murray
Medvedev
Goffin
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
Roger raised the bar so high that only two were able to follow. As Roger has started to decline with age the other two are starting to dominate. When they decline with age the level at the very top will finally drop low enough for the next gen to win.

And then commentators will have to pretend to be excited by mediocre tennis.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Double Digit Slam History

1930 (10 titles) Bill Tilden

1967 New Record (11 titles) Roy Emerson
(record broken 37 years after Tilden)
1967 final total (12 titles)

*1969 Rod Laver (11) also surpassed Tilden's total to become 2nd all-time

*1981 Bjorn Borg (11) equalled Laver to move into Joint 2nd all-time

2000 New Record (13 titles) Pete Sampras
(33 years after Emerson)
2002 -final total (14)

2009 New Record (15 titles) Roger Federer
(7 years after Sampras)
2018 -current total (20)

*2017 Rafa Nadal (15) also surpassed Sampras's total to become 2nd all-time
2019 -current total (19)

*2019 Novak Djokovic (15) also surpassed Sampras's total to become third all-time
2020 -current total (17)

2018 -20 titles Federer
2019 -19 titles Nadal
2020 -17 titles Djokovic
2002 -14 titles Sampras
1967 -12 titles Emerson
1969 -11 titles Laver
1981 -11 titles Borg
1930 -10 titles Tilden
So, you have no idea what I asked (judging by your attempt to cram in players that were not setting a new record), and you don't make a difference between the Open era and the Pro/Amateur tour era?

 

Robert F

Semi-Pro
I like many of the points presented--Slam chasing being growing in value, Australia growing in value, homogenization of the surfaces, poly strings, improvement in athletic development.

I also wonder if Djoker/Nadal and Federer came in a transitional tennis age where they have some of the mechanics of the old generations but also added the new technique that was allowed by poly. Whereas, guys after the Big 3 and their generation, no longer have the foundation of the older techniques. They are great with "modern techniques," but might lack deeper skills. I have glimmer of hope that some of the younger guys are now showing a little more depth and diversity.
 
Top