Will Federer's Slam Record be broken with 4 Slam seasons or more?

[BGod]

The notion of a 5th Major has been around for about a decade. With the growth of tennis and money in tournaments like Indian Wells, the idea of a 5th Grand Slam seems inevitable.

For reference, the Australian Open was poorly attended by the top players until the early 90s. Give or take it's been relevant for 30 years. Prior to that the Calendar was mostly Wimbledon, U.S. Open and the French for clay court specialists, usually from Europe.

Now, Nadal and Sampras only won 1 and 2 titles there. Federer won 4 of his 17 but Djokovic now has 5 of 8 there. There's a reason why the record of titles there was held by Agassi with a mere 4 he collected mostly in his twilight years. This is important to note.

So my question is simple. Will someone break Federer's Slam record (be it 17 or 18) in the standard 4 Slam format we have today? Or take advantage of a 5th or 6th Slam on the Calendar decades from now?

Emerson's record of 12 stood for over 30 years before Sampras got his 13th. He would have been at 12 without the Aussie Open titles and Federer would be at 13 himself. Things to think about.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I don't think there will be a 5th Slam, honestly. Uniformity will be important in terms of the long-term popularity of Tennis, and I don't see ITF/ATP taking that chance. The most I can see is happening is the introduction of another tier of championships, kind of like the WTF, with a very interesting format, but no more Slams.

So, to answer your question, Federer's record will likely be broken in the next 30 years within the current 4-Slam system.

 

[NGM]

The notion of a 5th Major has been around for about a decade. With the growth of tennis and money in tournaments like Indian Wells, the idea of a 5th Grand Slam seems inevitable.

Oh really?

 

[NGM]

Kids come out in unstopable force these days.

 

[smoledman]

Why not add an African slam? How about a South American one? How can the Southern Hemisphere be denied?

 

[BGod]

So, to answer your question, Federer's record will likely be broken in the next 30 years within the current 4-Slam system.

The reason I'm skeptical of it going down any time soon is because of the historical precedent:

1. Sampras beat Emerson's 33 year old record by claiming 2 Aussie Opens when the Slam became relevant to top players.
2. Borg came closest prior to Sampras by getting 11 through amazing streaks at the French and Wimbledon.
3. The above took less time.
4. Homogenization of the courts have made it easier than in the 90s with specialists on clay and grass.
5. Deeper and deeper pool of players.

Now, #4 may look like it leans towards it being easier to breaking the record by a player but because of #5 and less specialists resulting in more competition it makes Federer's domination in his 3 Slam seasons hard to come by in the future. Look at Jack Nichlaus' record in Golf. It's simple math really, the prime period for player's doesn't really increase with time, in that although they may compete for longer they'll still only have under a decade of dominant form over the field. When you raise the number of titles needed to win, at some point you're going to hit a "peak". In sports like Basketball for example, nobody is getting to Bill Russell's 11 rings. That's a team sport of course but in tennis getting to 18 Slams in the current format requires about a decade of consistent winning. You're more likely to have multiple players break Sampras' 14 mark and fall short of 18 than a player getting to 19. Federer for example has had to truck past a common down season in 2011 to get one more Major in 2012, and has continued after an even worse season in 2013. Sure players close to his record will continue to play but Federer's 0 career retirements and relatively low injury persistence has greatly aided him in his record.

Winning Majors is also about percentages, not like abundance stats in football. You have a finite number of Slams every season and that provides small room for error. If a player seriously concentrated on just 2 of the 4 Slams for "easy" titles, they would still need to be consistent at them for a decade. Sampras went 14-4 in Slam Finals, which also greatly helped him get that record. Federer's ridiculous 25 Finals alone are going to be hard to match.

I personally believe if he extends it to 18, it will remain for over 30 years. Part of the reason Federer and Nadal have so many titles is the dilution of the lower ranked players. Where are the Arazis of this generation? That said, even Nadal couldn't break it and he had incredible opportunity to do so. Now, with PED testing in the future, maybe we find out some things and like Barry Bonds' record, some tennis milestones become unreachable.

 

[BGod]

Why not add an African slam? How about a South American one? How can the Southern Hemisphere be denied?

I don't see Africa developing to that extent any time soon. Planet is tapped out pretty much.

But it wouldn't shock me to see a format like this in 2060:

6 Slams
World Final with 16 Players/8 Player Playoffs
Super 6 Masters Events with 128 player draws


Some yahoos are holding 24-30 Slam titles and only people alive today will be arguing Federer as GOAT while under 30 year olds laugh in our faces......

 

[ultradr]

I don't think there will be a 5th Slam, honestly. Uniformity will be important in terms of the long-term popularity of Tennis, and I don't see ITF/ATP taking that chance. The most I can see is happening is the introduction of another tier of championships, kind of like the WTF, with a very interesting format, but no more Slams.

So, to answer your question, Federer's record will likely be broken in the next 30 years within the current 4-Slam system.

+1.

emerson's record was not a real record.

If we count pro majors in pre-open era, we have a few players who won ~20+ majors. 3 slams were grass.
We now have not so different slam surfaces, we should have dominant players with ~20+ slams.

Federer was sole dominator in the early days of modern baseline era on homogeneous surfaces
he racked up large number of slams.

It's 70s-90s that was oddly difficult to win multiple slams per year due to very different slams.

If not within 10 years, it will be surely broken within 30 years, IMHO.

 

[G A S]

I feel a 5th slam is as probable as a change in the colours of the clothes of wimbledon of the players to black instead of white, that strong feeling it is not going to happen...

 

[Cenarius]

Why not add an African slam? How about a South American one? How can the Southern Hemisphere be denied?

Africa is starving not yawning.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

The reason I'm skeptical of it going down any time soon is because of the historical precedent:

1. Sampras beat Emerson's 33 year old record by claiming 2 Aussie Opens when the Slam became relevant to top players.
2. Borg came closest prior to Sampras by getting 11 through amazing streaks at the French and Wimbledon.
3. The above took less time.
4. Homogenization of the courts have made it easier than in the 90s with specialists on clay and grass.
5. Deeper and deeper pool of players.

Now, #4 may look like it leans towards it being easier to breaking the record by a player but because of #5 and less specialists resulting in more competition it makes Federer's domination in his 3 Slam seasons hard to come by in the future. Look at Jack Nichlaus' record in Golf. It's simple math really, the prime period for player's doesn't really increase with time, in that although they may compete for longer they'll still only have under a decade of dominant form over the field. When you raise the number of titles needed to win, at some point you're going to hit a "peak". In sports like Basketball for example, nobody is getting to Bill Russell's 11 rings. That's a team sport of course but in tennis getting to 18 Slams in the current format requires about a decade of consistent winning. You're more likely to have multiple players break Sampras' 14 mark and fall short of 18 than a player getting to 19. Federer for example has had to truck past a common down season in 2011 to get one more Major in 2012, and has continued after an even worse season in 2013. Sure players close to his record will continue to play but Federer's 0 career retirements and relatively low injury persistence has greatly aided him in his record.

Winning Majors is also about percentages, not like abundance stats in football. You have a finite number of Slams every season and that provides small room for error. If a player seriously concentrated on just 2 of the 4 Slams for "easy" titles, they would still need to be consistent at them for a decade. Sampras went 14-4 in Slam Finals, which also greatly helped him get that record. Federer's ridiculous 25 Finals alone are going to be hard to match.

I personally believe if he extends it to 18, it will remain for over 30 years. Part of the reason Federer and Nadal have so many titles is the dilution of the lower ranked players. Where are the Arazis of this generation? That said, even Nadal couldn't break it and he had incredible opportunity to do so. Now, with PED testing in the future, maybe we find out some things and like Barry Bonds' record, some tennis milestones become unreachable.

I hear what you're saying, but I think 17 is far from the "peak" you're talking about. Federer lost far too many Slams to a nightmare matchup in Nadal for that to realistically be the peak. I actually think 24 could be the absolute peak in Tennis (which is around what Federer could have managed without Nadal). That's not to say someone will win 24 in the future. Just that 17 is definitely surpassable. I think the guy to break Federer's record will finish with 19-20, and that could last a good 30 years before someone comes along and hits the real peak with 22-23.

I know I'm just throwing out big numbers which are insanely difficult to achieve, but hey, we are talking about the best professional sportsmen the world has ever seen.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Africa is starving not yawning.

I'm not gonna lie, that made me laugh out loud.

 

[Cenarius]

I'm not gonna lie, that made me laugh out loud.

Why? That is a little insensitive.Am I missing some strange sense of humor ? ? ?

 

[Sentinel]

Why not add an African slam? How about a South American one? How can the Southern Hemisphere be denied?

Australia, dear chap, is not in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[BGod]

I hear what you're saying, but I think 17 is far from the "peak" you're talking about. Federer lost far too many Slams to a nightmare matchup in Nadal for that to realistically be the peak. I actually think 24 could be the absolute peak in Tennis (which is around what Federer could have managed without Nadal). That's not to say someone will win 24 in the future. Just that 17 is definitely surpassable. I think the guy to break Federer's record will finish with 19-20, and that could last a good 30 years before someone comes along and hits the real peak with 22-23.

I know I'm just throwing out big numbers which are insanely difficult to achieve, but hey, we are talking about the best professional sportsmen the world has ever seen.

I use to think that way about Federer's epic finals but when you look at it the guy went 17-8. Half of those losses were at the French. In another era he may not have lost 4 French Open Finals, but 2 Semifinals for example.

So looking at his 5 setter Finals:

2007 Wimbledon
2008 Wimbledon
2009 Australia
2009 Wimbledon
2009 USO
2014 Wimbledon

The 14 and 09 Finals he probably wasn't winning. He's a tad lucky to have pushed the 14 Final as it was. Same could be said for the 08 Wimbledon Final his fans feel he came so close to winning, that 1/13 break point conversion is squarely on him. So I mean that's 3 of his 4 losses he should have lost....his 09 USO Final is the big one he should of won but he won 09 Wimbledon so I think that balances things out. Furthermore to only have 7 of his 25 Finals go to 5 sets? That's pretty low. Granted Pete Sampras only faced 1 five set match in his 18 Finals, but that's by far the lowest percentage.

Now I look at his 4 titles after the 2009 Aussie Open and I feel he was somewhat fortunate to get them. A healthy Nadal probably keeps him off the French and Wimbledon but he probably takes care of business in New York. I don't know how he does in Australia coming off that but I don't think he has 17 Slams, probably 15 or 16.

Now I'm looking at his final tally being 18 and breaking it would need 19. I don't think in the men's game 24 is at all possible. That's 12 years averaging 2 Slams, I just don't see it.

We'll all see in the next 15 years how it shapes out but I strongly suspect there will be a serious decline for players once they hit 14/15 Slams. Needing another 4-5 to break the record will be worse than Nadal right now because his 2013 season was a surprise. Nadal also managed 9 titles at one event which will become more and more insane and time goes by. You'll be looking at Sampras type title hauls, spreads of 7-5-2-1, etc.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I use to think that way about Federer's epic finals but when you look at it the guy went 17-8. Half of those losses were at the French. In another era he may not have lost 4 French Open Finals, but 2 Semifinals for example.

So looking at his 5 setter Finals:

2007 Wimbledon
2008 Wimbledon
2009 Australia
2009 Wimbledon
2009 USO
2014 Wimbledon

The 14 and 09 Finals he probably wasn't winning. He's a tad lucky to have pushed the 14 Final as it was. Same could be said for the 08 Wimbledon Final his fans feel he came so close to winning, that 1/13 break point conversion is squarely on him. So I mean that's 3 of his 4 losses he should have lost....his 09 USO Final is the big one he should of won but he won 09 Wimbledon so I think that balances things out. Furthermore to only have 7 of his 25 Finals go to 5 sets? That's pretty low. Granted Pete Sampras only faced 1 five set match in his 18 Finals, but that's by far the lowest percentage.

Now I look at his 4 titles after the 2009 Aussie Open and I feel he was somewhat fortunate to get them. A healthy Nadal probably keeps him off the French and Wimbledon but he probably takes care of business in New York. I don't know how he does in Australia coming off that but I don't think he has 17 Slams, probably 15 or 16.

Now I'm looking at his final tally being 18 and breaking it would need 19. I don't think in the men's game 24 is at all possible. That's 12 years averaging 2 Slams, I just don't see it.

We'll all see in the next 15 years how it shapes out but I strongly suspect there will be a serious decline for players once they hit 14/15 Slams. Needing another 4-5 to break the record will be worse than Nadal right now because his 2013 season was a surprise. Nadal also managed 9 titles at one event which will become more and more insane and time goes by. You'll be looking at Sampras type title hauls, spreads of 7-5-2-1, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying Federer should have or even could have won more Slams. Just that we have to account for a God-level player coming up sometime, and if Federer could have won 22-24 Slams if it weren't for a single independent variable (Nadal), I see the future God-level player achieving that number despite all the variables that come into play.

I think it's far too premature to assume Federer's number is, or even close to being, the "peak".

 

[sbengte]

How many Cincy titles does Fed have ? 5 ?

If there is a 5th slam, one will have to reach 17 + 5 = 22 slams to beat Fed's slam record.

 

[BGod]

I think the peak is probably 21, but it will be difficult to reach that for anyone. Despite Nadal, Federer really did have a lot going IN his favor:

1. Nalbandian injuries.
2. Hewitt injuries.
3. Mental edge over Roddick.
4. Slower courts leading to more base-line play. (allows more consistency, less upsets)
5. Safin injuries.
6. Nadal's development off-clay.
7. Establishing dominance not seen before and establishing mental edge over most players.
8. Playing into his 30s.
9. Below-average performance by younger generations.
10. Having edge over Djokovic, but Djokovic>Nadal.
11. Del Potro injuries.
12. Soderling sickness.

These are fairly significant variables that all came together.

 

[BGod]

Something fun to look at, the breakdown of yearly Slam totals for Sampras/Federer/Nadal:

Sampras:1-0-0-2-2-2-1-2-1-1-1-0-1
Nadal: 1-1-1-2-1-3-1-1-2-1-0
Federer: 1-3-2-3-3-1-2-1-0-1-0-0-0

Wilander, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer are the only players to have a 3 Slam season and only Federer did it more than once. I truly believe as time goes by people will understand how truly dominant Federer was.

 

[reaper]

A 5th slam is inevitable? I'm not expecting to see it in my lifetime and I'm hoping to live a while.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed's 17 major record will never be broken and will stand the test of time.

Children will soon start reading about his achievements in their 3rd grade text books.

 

[BGod]

A 5th slam is inevitable? I'm not expecting to see it in my lifetime and I'm hoping to live a while.

Up until the mid 80s, the Aussie Open was ignored by the top players. If it wasn't, guys like Connors and Borg would have won at least a few titles. Borg didn't care and it was ON GRASS at that time.

So an American living in the 60s was looking at Wimbledon & U.S. Open and the French Open was a Euro Slam. Come early 90s and there are now 4 legitimate Major events.

So with more money and global attention growing, do you really think it's a stretch to have a 5th Slam 40 years from now? I don't. Yes I think it's inevitable unless the planet dies out. Tournaments that have been around for decades at this point like Indian Wells will be elevated. By that point they'll have nearly a century of "prestige".

 

[gcollins]

The reason I'm skeptical of it going down any time soon is because of the historical precedent:

1. Sampras beat Emerson's 33 year old record by claiming 2 Aussie Opens when the Slam became relevant to top players.
2. Borg came closest prior to Sampras by getting 11 through amazing streaks at the French and Wimbledon.
3. The above took less time.
4. Homogenization of the courts have made it easier than in the 90s with specialists on clay and grass.
5. Deeper and deeper pool of players.

Now, #4 may look like it leans towards it being easier to breaking the record by a player but because of #5 and less specialists resulting in more competition it makes Federer's domination in his 3 Slam seasons hard to come by in the future. Look at Jack Nichlaus' record in Golf. It's simple math really, the prime period for player's doesn't really increase with time, in that although they may compete for longer they'll still only have under a decade of dominant form over the field. When you raise the number of titles needed to win, at some point you're going to hit a "peak". In sports like Basketball for example, nobody is getting to Bill Russell's 11 rings. That's a team sport of course but in tennis getting to 18 Slams in the current format requires about a decade of consistent winning. You're more likely to have multiple players break Sampras' 14 mark and fall short of 18 than a player getting to 19. Federer for example has had to truck past a common down season in 2011 to get one more Major in 2012, and has continued after an even worse season in 2013. Sure players close to his record will continue to play but Federer's 0 career retirements and relatively low injury persistence has greatly aided him in his record.

Winning Majors is also about percentages, not like abundance stats in football. You have a finite number of Slams every season and that provides small room for error. If a player seriously concentrated on just 2 of the 4 Slams for "easy" titles, they would still need to be consistent at them for a decade. Sampras went 14-4 in Slam Finals, which also greatly helped him get that record. Federer's ridiculous 25 Finals alone are going to be hard to match.

I personally believe if he extends it to 18, it will remain for over 30 years. Part of the reason Federer and Nadal have so many titles is the dilution of the lower ranked players. Where are the Arazis of this generation? That said, even Nadal couldn't break it and he had incredible opportunity to do so. Now, with PED testing in the future, maybe we find out some things and like Barry Bonds' record, some tennis milestones become unreachable.

1) People ALWAYS find a way around PED testing.
2) Are you accusing Roger of PED's? He doesn't look like the type physically who takes them.

 

[gcollins]

And to expand on the notion of 24 being the peak amount of slams achievable... I both think it's impossible AND think it's not....

2 slams by 12 years sounds nuts, and it's even crazier when you consider ages, meaning from 18-29 at YOUNGEST, 2 slams.

However, it's even CRAZIER when you consider how it would MOST likely be done... 3 slams for 5 years, 2 slams for 3 more and maybe a total of 3 other slams before and after this mythical person's peak. That's why I think it's impossible.

But I think it's possible (perhaps this is a weak reason) because we think a lot of sports records are impossible until someone breaks them. If you'd have asked me if I thought someone could get to 17, I'd say no. If you'd have asked me if I thought someone could get EIGHT French Opens, let alone NINE, I'd say no. But then it happened. It's just the nature of sports.

 

[BGod]

But I think it's possible (perhaps this is a weak reason) because we think a lot of sports records are impossible until someone breaks them. If you'd have asked me if I thought someone could get to 17, I'd say no. If you'd have asked me if I thought someone could get EIGHT French Opens, let alone NINE, I'd say no. But then it happened. It's just the nature of sports.

There are certain sports record that DO stand the test of time however. Dan Marino's single season yardage record stood for 27 years. This is in a sport where offensive production has increased by 25% for some time now.

In terms of titles, this can't become easier due to anything specific. People just have to win. Terry Bradshaw is still the holder, tied with Montana and Brady for most Super Bowl titles at Quarterback with 4. He set the mark in 1980 and that's now 35 years and counting. Montana looked sure to pass it in 1991 but crap happened. Brady meanwhile lost the shot at a perfect season.

In individual sports, titles are even more difficult as you can't rely on anyone else. I'm not going to cover Michael Phelp's total Gold Medals because things can change in certain sports where you can load up on more, but his Threepeat at two individual swimming events is going to last because nobody before him in over 60 years had won more than two consecutive. These things matter.

Just like I think Jimmy Connors will keep his record of Year End Top 10 finishes. He sits with Agassi at 16 and Roger, while probably making it 14 this year, will be hard pressed to have 3 more. We'll see. I think many of Roger's records will be untouchable for half a century.