Why is the period 1990s-03 such a volatile phase in win% ?? ... Looks like a weak era ...... Why so?

Sunny014

Legend
Year - Win% of the year end ranked 1 player vs year end ranked 2 player

1974 - Connors 96% and Newcombe 85.7% ( Laver 81.82% )
1975 - Connors 91% and Vilas 83% (Borg 81.9%)
1976 - Connors 91% and Borg 83% (Nastase 84%)
1977 - Connors 82% and Vilas 90% ( Borg 91.7% )
1978 - Connors 91% and Borg 91%
1979 - Borg 93% and Connors 86% (Mac 87%)
1980 - Borg 92% and Mac 82% (Connors 82%)
1981 - Mac 88% and Connors 83% (Borg 85 and Lendl 87)
1982 - Mac 88.75% and Connors 88.6% (Lendl 92%)
1983 - Mac 85% and Lend 82% (Connors 82 and Wilander 88)
1984- Mac 96% and Connors 84%
1985 - Lendl 92% and Mac 89% (Wilander 76.7, Connors 77.4)
1986 - Lendl 92% and Becker 84%, (Wilander 80 and Mac 81.48%)
1987 - Lendl 91% and Edberg 86%, (Wilander 79.55%, Connors 73%, Becker 78%)
1988 - Wilander 82% and Lendl 83% (Becker 86% and Agassi 85%)
1989 - Lendl 91% and Becker 89%
1990 - Edberg 82% and Becker 82%
1991 - Edberg 81 and Courier 74%
1992 - Courier 79 and Edberg 73.9%
1993 - Sampras 84% and Stitch 77.55%
1994 - Sampras 86.5% and Agassi 78.59%
1995 - Sampras 81.82% and Agassi 89%
1996 - Sampras 85.5% and Chang 77%, Kafelnikov 76%
1997 - Sampras 82% and Rafter 69% (11th ranked in actual win% that year), Chang 73%
1998 - Sampras 78% (ranked 3 in win% in the year) and Rios 80% (1st that year and without winning any slam), Corretja 73%
1999 - Agassi 81% and Kafelnikov 65% (15th that year) while Sampras with 83% (highest win%) was ranked 3
2000 - Kuerten 74% (3rd in win%) and Safin 73% (5th that year in win%), Sampras highest win% with 76% but ended rank 3
2001 - Hewitt 81% and Kuerten 76.92%
2002 - Hewitt 80% and Agassi 81%
2003 - Roddick 79% and Federer 82.11% (Aggasi had highest % of wins at 82.46% but ranked 4)

2004 - Federer 92% and Roddick 80% (Hewitt 79%)
2005 - Federer 95% and Nadal 88.76% (Roddick 80% and Hewitt 80%)
2006 - Federer 94.85% and Nadal 83% (Davydenko 70% and Blake 70%)
2007 - Federer 88% and Nadal 82% (Novak 78%)
2008 - Nadal 88% and Federer 81%
2009 - Federer 83.5% and Nadal 82%
2010 - Nadal 87% and Federer 83%
2011 - Novak 92% and Nadal 82%, Federer had 83% win% but ranked 3
2012 - Novak 86% and Federer 85%, Nadal had 87% but ranked 3
2013 - Nadal 91% and Novak 89%
2014 - Novak 88% and Fed 85%
2015 - Novak 93% and Murray 83%, Fed was 85% but ranked 3
2016 - Murray 89% and Novak 86%
2017 - Nadal 85% and Fed 91% (ranked 2 despite higher win%)
2018 - Novak 81% and Nadal 91% (ranked 2 despite highest win%) and Fed 82.7%
2019 - Nadal 89% and Novak 83%
2020 - Novak 89% and Nadal 79%
2021 - Novak 88% and Meddy 82.76%

Was Pete Sampras was a weak champ ??
 
Last edited:

Max G.

Legend
Surface differences. The more different the surfaces are, the more you would expect a #1 player to lose early on their not-favored surface.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
When you play on serve friendly, low bouncing surfaces upsets are more easily caused.
This could be true, but it wouldn't explain why the upset rate at Roland Garros was higher in the 90s/early 00s than it is now.
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
This could be true, but it wouldn't explain why the upset rate at Roland Garros was higher in the 90s/early 00s than it is now.
“Fast clay” bro lol.

Real reason is seeding being 1-16 first and foremost.

You could argue we also had more depth in the field back then…
 
This could be true, but it wouldn't explain why the upset rate at Roland Garros was higher in the 90s/early 00s than it is now.
it was a pretty strong period for clay court tennis, with many kuerten kafelnikov corretja coria ferrero tier players, worse than nadal for sure, but better than the clay court specialists of the late 2000s and 2010s like Almagro or even Ferrer (whom I don't really rate much based on how not good he was against top clay courters in the 2001-2005 period when he was in his early 20s)

edit: the peak Federer of 2004 lost easily to Kuerten in the french open, and also lost to Albert Costa on clay that year (the 2002 champion)
Federer beat Gaudio in Hamburg, but it was like 75 in the third set, could have gone either way.
 

ibbi

Legend
This could be true, but it wouldn't explain why the upset rate at Roland Garros was higher in the 90s/early 00s than it is now.
How do you mean? The Roland Garros upset rate can be attributed to the second part of what I said. It requires a whole different set of skills, hence why the winners of it rarely won anything else, and people that could win 2 or 3 of the others could rarely win it. Now everyone can win everything.
 

Sunny014

Legend
More competition = lower winning percentages. It's not complicated. Ironically, it could mean they were all mugs, too, and I suspect we'll have a decade or so of that until tennis forgets about the Big 3 + Murray. So, flip a coin and decide. I think the variety of surface speeds had a lot to do with it.
Not necessarily

I was checking win% for the 1980s, Mcenroe-Connors-Lendl-Wilander-Edberg and some other non ATGs all have tremendous win% of 80-90% every year

Sampras and co have really bad % in the 1990s, it is weird...
 

Sunny014

Legend
These stats don't show anything actually
Claycourter Chang with 77% ranked 2 in 96 ?
Then Rafter 69% ranked 2 in 97
Then some guy called Rios without a slam ranked 2 in the year end in 98??
Kafelnikov with 65% ranked 2 ahead of Sampras in 99
Then Safin and Hewitt who were like 19-20 quickly rose because these guys quickly got outdated? String Technology cannot cause such a big change that these veterans failed to adapt, these veterans were all crap all along .... Compare that to someone like Lendl who had so many years when he was above 90% in win % for the year, Sampras never even came close to 90..... How did rios without a slam become 1? This was a weak era for sure as @mike danny pointed out once on Sampras not having as good competition as Federer or Nadal, this is true.
 

Sunny014

Legend
When you play on serve friendly, low bouncing surfaces upsets are more easily caused. When you can't play basically exactly the same way on all the surfaces win percentages will be lower.
Nd what about the 80s when Mr Lendl had 90% win ratio every year ?

Lendl

1981 - 87.3%
1982 - 92.2%

1983 - 82.4%
1984 - 79.5%
1985 - 92.3%
1986 - 92.5%
1987 - 91.4%

1988 - 83.7%
1989 - 91.9%

Sampras had 0 seasons with % more than 87 while Lendl had 6 ..... why ?
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Legend
Without looking at any numbers now, I know that Sampras's lifetime win % is less than 80%, perhaps around 77%? Less than each of Big 3, and Borg, and I think less than Connors, Mac and Lendl.

For one, his stats drop off on clay, but another thing is that Pete was also an extraordinary big match player, and not all matches are created equal.

When first Roger and then Rafa and Novak came along, they each had games that could, essentially, win anywhere. From here, we can go into the usual exercises of whether it was their greatness or other factors ("surface homogenization", lesser players after them) that accounted for this.

Back to Lendl and Pete. Pete is considered much greater based primarily on 14-8. I would not argue that Lendl was better, as that's too big of a disparity in the most important category.

But (and I'm not looking now) Lendl made 19 slam finals to Pete's 18, and he's probably even or better than Pete in most other categories. For instance, he was certainly better at Wim than Pete was at RG.
 

Oval_Solid

Semi-Pro
the poly effect
also different surfaces with players that specialized in a certain surface
sampras played serve and volley even on clay at the french which mean hes more of a gambler/risk taker vs the big 3s safer back court game
main reason is poly and poly influence into other areas
a few other difference between era also played a smaller effect

also where are the foot notes for the stats?
it is easier to just believe everything you hear
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
More competition = lower winning percentages. It's not complicated. Ironically, it could mean they were all mugs, too, and I suspect we'll have a decade or so of that until tennis forgets about the Big 3 + Murray. So, flip a coin and decide. I think the variety of surface speeds had a lot to do with it.
Kuerten meeting such low standards to become #1 and end the year as #1 hasn't much to do with more upsets or surfaces being vastly different. Him and Safin were trading the #1 spot later aswell. Late 90s and early 20s was a rough period in mens tennis, nothing to do with more competition. It was a vacuum until Federer came and raised the standards, as much as he could but he couldn't vacuum it all by himself as it still left its marks a couple of more years.
 

sliceroni

Hall of Fame
Lendl dominated mid-late 80s and Sampras dominated 90s, both periods had great parity but Sampras never crossed 87% even once while Lendl did it in 6 different years, why?
Lendl producing much better much results on grass than Pete did on clay. No Edberg or Becker around Lendl most likely has a Wimbledon title or 2. Miss watching Pete, the epitome of an an alpha male during a Wimbledon final.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
“Fast clay” bro lol.

Real reason is seeding being 1-16 first and foremost.

You could argue we also had more depth in the field back then…
Would be interesting to see some stats on how many times the top 16 played the 17-32 ranked players early in slams. It's sort of counter-inuitive but I wonder if there's slams where it helped the likes of Sampras, for example he doesn't draw a #17-#32 player but his projected QF'ist does and gets knocked out so faces #20 instead of #6 etc...Just using Pete as an example as the most winningest player from that era.

I would think the variety in surfaces, lack of poly etc...were big factors as well. I do think successive weaker generations from the 10's onwards helped consistency as well. Sort of like the difference between facing Richard Gasquet for the 30th time or having someone young and hungry - like Gasquet when he burst onto the scene lol.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Kuerten meeting such low standards to become #1 and end the year as #1 hasn't much to do with more upsets or surfaces being vastly different. Him and Safin were trading the #1 spot later aswell. Late 90s and early 20s was a rough period in mens tennis, nothing to do with more competition. It was a vacuum until Federer came and raised the standards, as much as he could but he couldn't vacuum it all by himself as it still left its marks a couple of more years.
Standards of becoming 1 were already low in 1997 as per these stats of the second ranked guy in the year having such low % and then Rios sneaking up on Pete without winning any slam. Even Moya was 1 briefly? Such things were unthinkable in the Federer era or in the Novak era or even in the 80s I guess
 

ibbi

Legend
Nd what about the 80s when Mr Lendl had 90% win ratio every year ?

Lendl

1981 - 87.3%
1982 - 92.2%

1983 - 82.4%
1984 - 79.5%
1985 - 92.3%
1986 - 92.5%
1987 - 91.4%

1988 - 83.7%
1989 - 91.9%

Sampras had 0 seasons with % more than 87 while Lendl had 6 ..... why ?
I mean I'd say there's a couple of reasons. One would be that while they played a comparable number of matches on their least favourite surface (Lendl about 100 on grass, Sampras about 150 on clay) Sampras played less than a 1000 matches overall, while Lendl played about 1300. Their wins are separated by about the same margin of 300.

Furthermore, Lendl has a game more conducive to adapting across the surfaces than Sampras does anyway. How many times did Edberg or Becker have such seasons? McEnroe certainly had a bunch, but then he barely played on (red) clay, and har-tru is something else entirely.
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Would be interesting to see some stats on how many times the top 16 played the 17-32 ranked players early in slams. It's sort of counter-inuitive but I wonder if there's slams where it helped the likes of Sampras, for example he doesn't draw a #17-#32 player but his projected QF'ist does and gets knocked out so faces #20 instead of #6 etc...Just using Pete as an example as the most winningest player from that era.

I would think the variety in surfaces, lack of poly etc...were big factors as well. I do think successive weaker generations from the 10's onwards helped consistency as well. Sort of like the difference between facing Richard Gasquet for the 30th time or having someone young and hungry - like Gasquet when he burst onto the scene lol.
you know, in some ways I do believe the variety in style and surfaces/lack of poly underpins all the other issues. i.e. when you look at old Wimby/US Open draws you see all the instances where Muster, Bruguera, 97-99 Kuerten etc. all lost early and were essentially guarantees for draws falling apart. did Muster and other clay rats even play anything but the bare minimum in HC/grass events most years? And then of course the inverse on clay with Pete being a non-factor. Was the non-mandatory Masters schedule part of this? probably so as well.

Agassi, Kafelnikov, and Chang don't get enough credit for making it so far on each surface and doing it all consistently. Chang especially is someone who deserves a whole lot more credit, tbh. How he was able to do what he did in a S&V era is wild.

So you have a wider variance of outcomes from top seeds than you do today - where for better or for worse a top 8 seed is usually a top 10-12 favorite to win. Basically instead of having one USO Casper Ruud in the draw as a top seed you have 4 or 5, and there are only 16 seeds anyways so it's a free for all.

I definitely do think that the top players just plain weren't as consistently good as the Big 3 or Murray though, homogenized surfaces and poly or not. Chang, Kafelnikov, Goran, Krajicek, and Pioline each made Slam SFs on each surface I believe. It wasn't impossible. The Big 3 are extremely talented at not losing 5-setters to mugs and the 90s guys were not. I really don't believe anyone outside of Pete was on a Big 3 level of talent, dedication, consistency, and focus in a vacuum. Even with all the excuses and mitigating factors there have been very few OE players who can bring it year-round the way the Big 3 do.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
you know, in some ways I do believe the variety in style and surfaces/lack of poly underpins all the other issues. i.e. when you look at old Wimby/US Open draws you see all the instances where Muster, Bruguera, 97-99 Kuerten etc. all lost early and were essentially guarantees for draws falling apart. did Muster and other clay rats even play anything but the bare minimum in HC/grass events most years? And then of course the inverse on clay with Pete being a non-factor. Was the non-mandatory Masters schedule part of this? probably so as well.

Agassi, Kafelnikov, and Chang don't get enough credit for making it so far on each surface and doing it all consistently. Chang especially is someone who deserves a whole lot more credit, tbh. How he was able to do what he did in a S&V era is wild.

So you have a wider variance of outcomes from top seeds than you do today - where for better or for worse a top 8 seed is usually a top 10-12 favorite to win. Basically instead of having one USO Casper Ruud in the draw as a top seed you have 4 or 5, and there are only 16 seeds anyways so it's a free for all.

I definitely do think that the top players just plain weren't as consistently good as the Big 3 or Murray though, homogenized surfaces and poly or not. Chang, Kafelnikov, Goran, Krajicek, and Pioline each made Slam SFs on each surface I believe. It wasn't impossible. The Big 3 are extremely talented at not losing 5-setters to mugs and the 90s guys were not. I really don't believe anyone outside of Pete was on a Big 3 level of talent, dedication, consistency, and focus in a vacuum. Even with all the excuses and mitigating factors there have been very few OE players who can bring it year-round the way the Big 3 do.
Consistency is overrated IMO. Bean counters will hold up the consistency of the top 10 in say 2015 as proof of it being a very strong year but there's always two ways to look it. Is it tougher to have the 10 same players making deep runs everywhere or for each surface to have four or five of it's own top players? Proponents of the 90's would say the later, some Big 3 fans the former.

For sure the Big 3 have set the bar high in terms of consistency and longevity, the likes of Lendl, Connors, Borg, Mac were also very consistent in their best years. The biggest difference with the Big 3 is motivation and longevity IMO. Of course their peak level is very high as well but we've not seen that for a long time. What seperates them is that they've been able to raise their games in the big matches for 15 years.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
More competition = lower winning percentages. It's not complicated. Ironically, it could mean they were all mugs, too, and I suspect we'll have a decade or so of that until tennis forgets about the Big 3 + Murray. So, flip a coin and decide. I think the variety of surface speeds had a lot to do with it.
Problem is that if they were mugs, how come they beat Fed when he was in his prime?
 

Mikael

Professional
Remember back then there were only 16 seeds at majors. That's another reason why the win % might have been lower as there was a higher chance of early round upsets.
 
Claycourter Chang with 77% ranked 2 in 96 ?
Then Rafter 69% ranked 2 in 97
Then some guy called Rios without a slam ranked 2 in the year end in 98??
Kafelnikov with 65% ranked 2 ahead of Sampras in 99
Then Safin and Hewitt who were like 19-20 quickly rose because these guys quickly got outdated? String Technology cannot cause such a big change that these veterans failed to adapt, these veterans were all crap all along .... Compare that to someone like Lendl who had so many years when he was above 90% in win % for the year, Sampras never even came close to 90..... How did rios without a slam become 1? This was a weak era for sure as @mike danny pointed out once on Sampras not having as good competition as Federer or Nadal, this is true.
He didn't become 1 by hacking atp computers
He had the points of an Australian open final, and a few weeks later won both Indian Wells and Miami in a row, which gives you as many points as winning a grand slam.
 

Sunny014

Legend
One of the weakest tennis eras for sure
I mean I'd say there's a couple of reasons. One would be that while they played a comparable number of matches on their least favourite surface (Lendl about 100 on grass, Sampras about 150 on clay) Sampras played less than a 1000 matches overall, while Lendl played about 1300. Their wins are separated by about the same margin of 300.

Furthermore, Lendl has a game more conducive to adapting across the surfaces than Sampras does anyway. How many times did Edberg or Becker have such seasons? McEnroe certainly had a bunch, but then he barely played on (red) clay, and har-tru is something else entirely.

Edited from 1974 till 2021

Lol, the 90s looks like the weakest era in history.

The dip is abnormal.
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
The last 15 years have been an anomaly. All of us have been truly blessed to have witnessed this era. Because what we had was a champion (Federer) who set a new standard. He raised the bar without question. Those of us who watched Fed in 2002-2004 when he first started winning every tournament in sight will remember how the commentators oooh'd and aaah'd all over him and unanimously said Fed (1) played at a level they hadn't witnessed before and (2) could go on to become the GOAT. They were saying these accolades when he had won only his 3rd Slam. Think about that. In any other era, Fed talent and drive would have gotten him to breaking Sampras's Slam record and he would have likely retired at 15 or 16 Slams. But then two other, significantly younger, players (we all know who they are) showed up and pushed him to sustain his quality for probably 5-8 years longer than typical. And then these two guys themselves were huge talents motivated to chase down Federer's record and this mutual competition resulted in a roughly 15 year period of triumvirate dominance. For me, it's clear that Fed is the one who raised the game to a new level. Nadal and Djokovic have, to be sure, matched it but it can't be said that they have surpassed it. The CYGS could have been something viewed as a new, unprecedented level of dominance (in the modern era), but it didn't happen. So we are where we are.
 

Sunny014

Legend
The last 15 years have been an anomaly. All of us have been truly blessed to have witnessed this era. Because what we had was a champion (Federer) who set a new standard. He raised the bar without question. Those of who watched Fed in 2002-2004 when he first started winning every tournament in sight will remember how nearly all the commentators oooh'd and aaah'd over him and basically unanimously said Fed (1) played at a level we hadn't witnessed before and (2) could go on to become the GOAT. They were saying this when he had won only his 3rd Slam. Think about that. In any other era, Fed with all of his own talent and drive would have broken Sampras's Slam record and probably retired at 15-16 Slams. But then he had two other, significantly younger players (we all know who they are) push him to sustain his quality for probably 5-8 years longer than typical. And then these two guys themselves were huge talents motivated to chase down Federer's record and this mutual competition resulted in a roughly 15+ year period of triumvirate dominance. For me, it's clear that Fed is the one who raised the game to a new level. Nadal and Djokovic have, to be sure, matched it but it can't be said that they have surpassed it. The CYGS could have been something that be viewed as a new level of dominance, but it didn't happen. So we are where we are.
True

When Federer double bageled Hewitt at the USO final 2004 then at the end of the first set or in the beginning of the second set the commentators said " Federer is playing like he is many years from the future "

Golden words that perfectly summarized how great Federer was then
 
Transport all these baseline pushers back to the 1990s/Early 2000's right now and lets see their winning percentages. LOL Bet its far worse than Pete's. Far far worse. To see success back then you needed to play a high risk game. High Risk means a much lower efficiency level and low margin of error. But you had no choice back then if you wanted success
 

ibbi

Legend
Edited from 1974 till 2021

Lol, the 90s looks like the weakest era in history.

The dip is abnormal.
It wasn't WEAK (define weak:-D) it was the most divisive, where tennis tech was evolving, and it was the most ghettoized it ever got. That's like the main reason we have the state of things we have today where everything is the same. You think they just got better? There job is just completely different. The majority of guys today are not winning any more tournaments than they ever have done, and I know there are fewer tournaments today than there used to be, but that's as much as anything down to the fact that guys play less. The numbers have remained steady all along.

See below the guys with 4 or more titles per year. There's fewer instances of double digit titles in the period you mention, but no fewer instances of guys winning 4 or more.

71 - rosewall 7 - nastase, newcombe 6 - laver 5 - smith, franulovic 4
72 - nastase 11 - smith, newcombe 7 - connors 6 - orantes 5 - hewitt 4
73 - nastase 14 - connors 11 - okker 7
74 - connors & vilas 7 - borg & nastase 4
75 - orantes 6 - vilas 5
76 - connors 6 - orantes 5 - tanner 4
77 - vilas 16 - borg 10 - gerulaitis, gottfried 5
78 - connors 10 - borg 9 - vilas 7 - dibbs, higueras & mcenroe 4
79 - borg 12 - mcenroe 10 - connors 7 - vilas 4
80 - mcenroe 9 - borg 8 - lendl 7 - connors, clerc 6 - mayer 5 - solomon, gottfried 4
81 - mcenroe 10 - lendl 8 - clerc 6 - connors, mayer 4
82 - lendl 14 - connors & vilas 7 - clerc, gerulaitis - 5
83 - wilander 9 - lendl 8 - mcenroe 6 - clerc, arias, connors 4
84 - mcenroe 13 - connors, gomez 5 - nystrom 4
85 - lendl 11 - mcenroe 9 - edberg 4
86 - lendl 10, becker 6 - nystrom 5 - gilbert, gomez 4
87 - lendl 8 - edberg 7 - mecir 6 - mayotte, wilander 5 - sanchez 4
88 - becker 7 - wilander, agassi 6 - carlsson 5 - mayotte, muster 4
89 - lendl 10 - becker, gilbert 5 - jaite 4
90 - edberg 7 - becker, lendl 5 - sampras, agassi 4
91 - edberg, forget 6 - novacek, sampras, stich 4
92 - sampras, courier, becker 5 - ivanisevic 4
93 - sampras 8 - muster 7 - stich 6 - bruguera, chang, courier 5
94 - sampras 10 - berasategui 7 - chang 6 - agassi, ferreira 5 - becker 4
95 - muster 12 - agassi 7 - enqvist, sampras 5 - ferreira, kafelnikov, chang, courier 4
96 - sampras 8 - muster 7 - becker, ivanisevic 5 - kafelnikov 4
97 - sampras 8 - chang, mantilla 5
98 - rafter, rios 6 - corretja 5 - sampras, agassi 4
99 - sampras, agassi, norman 5
00 - safin 7 - kuerten, corretja, norman 5 - hewitt 4
01 - hewitt, kuerten 6 - agassi, ferrero, haas 4
02 - agassi, hewitt 5 - moya 4
03 - federer 7 - roddick 6 - coria 5 - agassi, ferrero 4
04 - federer 11 - hewitt, roddick 4
05 - federer, nadal 11 - roddick, gaudio 5
06 - federer 12 - nadal, davydenko, blake 5
07 - federer 8 - nadal 6 - djokovic 5
08 - nadal 8 - murray 5 - djokovic, federer, del potro 4
09 - murray 6 - nadal, davydenko, djokovic 5 - federer 4
10 - nadal 7 - federer 5 - querrey 4
11 - djokovic 10 - murray 5 - federer, soderling 4
12 - ferrer 7 - djokovic, federer 6 - nadal, del potro, monaco 4
13 - nadal 10 - djokovic 7 - murray, del potro 4
14 - djokovic 7 - federer 5 - nadal, cilic, nishikori 4
15 - djokovic 11 - federer 6 - ferrer 5 - wawrinka, murray 4
16 - murray 9 - djokovic 7 - wawrinka, thiem 4
17 - federer 7 - nadal 6 - zverev 5 - dimitrov, tsonga 4
18 - nadal 5 - djokovic, federer, zverev 4
19 - djokovic, thiem 5 - nadal, medvedev, federer 4
20 - rublev 5 - djokovic 4
 

Sunny014

Legend
Transport all these baseline pushers back to the 1990s/Early 2000's right now and lets see their winning percentages. LOL Bet its far worse than Pete's. Far far worse. To see success back then you needed to play a high risk game. High Risk means a much lower efficiency level and low margin of error. But you had no choice back then if you wanted success
Let the baseline pushers keep their current racquets too ...then we shall see

Big 3 will dominate from the baseline ....someone like Roger would be unstoppable, he could play the high risk game too and with his current racquet he will be much stronger to beat
 
Top