Most likely, Roger is a once in a lifetime player. I would not be surprised if he won a few more slams, if he stays healthy.
Winning Slams age 30 and over
- Thread starter Badabing888
- Start date
FHtennisman
Professional
I think the reason why Stan, Rafa and Fed have managed to win slams in their 30s is more due to the lack of quality from the two generations below them although obviously they are all quality but clearly Fedal are a considerable amount short in the physical ability they had back in their mid 20s. However, despite that, Fed is still the exception - winning slams at 35 and 36 when no man has done that for decades upon decades is ridiculous because of the physical style of tennis today and that all his rivals are much younger than him too.
Badabing888
Hall of Fame
Oh ok misread. Still Emerson was 34/35 when he faced Rosewall at AO 71 and Emerson was never a factor in winning Slams in his 30s in the Open Era. So Rosewall faced Ashe in the final? playing at home against Ashe who was three years into his Pro career against Rosewall who had been playing and training as a Pro for 15 years previously. And you’re saying Rosewall played such tough opposition to win this slam? AO pre 1988 were not really full Slams that is what I am saying. Point is AO17 and AO18 were full Slams and not like AO 71. Injury and form and part and parcel of Tennis and any sport. It doesn’t deminish Roger’s achievements. No different to Agassi’s wins in 2001 and 2003.
Federer should be long retired by now like his nearest contemporaries -Roddick, Hewitt, Safini etc. But he’s not he’s still winning Slams. Otherwise we start discounting Murray’s Wimbledon win in 2016 etc because of the so called “weak” opposition he faced to win that one.
Cilic will get into the hall of famer- 1 Slam and two runners up and maybe more Slams to come.
Last edited:
A lot of denial there; his rivals have problems because they cannot match Fed's natural level without injuring themselves. So he is to blame and it adds another string to his bow as the undeniable GOAT.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
I guess what you are saying is quite reasonable and should be the popular view of most tennis fans and experts. However, I think the depth in general is very good now, I mean top 100, but we just don't have players as good as Federer or Nadal. There is a catch, though. Would we have had players as good as Federer and Nadal in other eras? Djokovic and Murray as well. In the history of tennis, we have never had more than 4 super champions at the same time. Players that would have won slams and gotten to no.1 might have been robbed of chances by these big 4. We are complaining that there aren't many to beat these 4, but did we have a lot of players who could've in other eras? I guess my conclusion is it is so tough to beat super champions as long as they are healthy, even when they are old. Agassi was able to beat most except Federer at 34.
AceSalvo
Legend
Just like the fact that Roger's problems in 2008 made it easy for them to cash in? hmm, maybe you have a point.
See how that works?
FHtennisman
Professional
It's not necessary IMO that we need an absolute peak ATG to defeat Fed and Nadal at their current advanced ages, the likes of a 2007/2008 Djokovic and 2009 Delpo would be sufficient to challenge and triumph several times over a season. We could argue that Novak and Delpo were both ATG in some tournaments they played but over the season they most likely weren't - presently, we're not seeing new players challenging the top echelon enough throughout the year. I'm talking specifically about Fedal right now against the field, if it was the Big 4 against any past ATG champion than that would depend on playing conditions, technology and matchups. Currently, at their ages and physical condition, I reckon Fedal are easily vulnerable to ATGs in their best physical condition - much like Djokovic vs Federer in their slam meetings during 2014-2016.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Cilic came close to beating Federer at AO and Wawrinka beat Djokovic a couple of times at his peak. Federer also lost to Zverev in Montreal, and Shapovalov beat Nadal as well just before Nadal's 3rd USO title. I think there are people who can beat them now, but consistently beating them would be tough.
FHtennisman
Professional
Apart from the Wawrinka/Novak example, the rest are exceptions - Cilic did beat Fed at USO 2014 but he's 9-1 in the h2h, Sascha beat Fed in Montreal but that was backerer and Shapo's win whilst a great one was against a Nadal that has always been susceptible to early defeats at HC events below Major level. Essentially, what my point was that there have been no young players to displace the succes of the somewhat salubrious stalwarts up until this point, particularly in the slams.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
While I want to see young players to step up and win some slams, I think it would be difficult to replace the big 4 in any era, not just the present one.
FHtennisman
Professional
IMO the likes of Borg and Laver are similar in quality to the Big 3.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Oh, yeah, for sure. They are the very best players the game has ever seen. All of them belong in the same league.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
There have always bern people who could beat Fedal even during their absolute peaks. This year doesn't bring anything new.
Sasha unfortunately has yet to beat healthy 100% Fed. His 2 victories were against kneeerer and backerer.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The present one is the easiest time to do it. 3/4 are injured and yet you have almost 30 year old Cilic in slam finals and no.3 in the world and almost 30 year old Delpo and Bautista Agut winning titles against them.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
I think Fedal had plenty of tough matches but because they won those, people seem to just believe they had it all too easy.
As the Big 4 are in their tail end of the career, it is only a matter of time, yes. I expect to see some new slam winner in their 20s by the end of 2019.
Things are hard between eras. I think Laver's 1970 Champions Tennis Champions classic win was equivalent to 1 Slam and his 1971 Tennis Champions Classic was equivalent to 1.5 or 2 Slams (13 rounds best of 5 every round - imagine Rosewall first round, Newcombe second round, Roche third round, Emerson 4th round, Ashe 5th round, Okker 6th round etc - all best of 5 matches!). These were at 31/32/33 years old.
What some thought of Lavers 1971 Tennis Champions Classic Achievement at the time:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...DMKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Rafa - legend! 
Drob
Hall of Fame
- Four-time winners : Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver and Roger Federer
- Two-time winners : Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, Stan Wawrinka and Rafael Nadal
- One-time winners : Andres Gimeno, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, Pete Sampras, Andres Gomez, Petr Korda
- Australian Open : 9 times, oldest champion is Ken Rosewall
- Roland Garros : 6 times, oldest champion is Andres Gimeno
- Wimbledon : 4 times, oldest champion is Roger Federer
- US Open : 7 times, oldest champion is Ken Rosewall
- Grass : 10 times
- Hard : 10 times
- Clay : 6 times
- 1960s : Laver x4, Rosewall x1
- 1970s : Rosewall x3, Gimeno x1, Ashe x1, Newcombe x1
- 1980s : Connors x2
- 1990s : Gomez x1, Korda x1
- 2000s : Agassi x2, Sampras x1
- 2010s : Federer x4, Wawrinka x2, Nadal x2
The percentage of Grand Slam tournaments won by thirty-something players is 13%.
Great chart. You are too generous IMO in including PED user Korda as a champion.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Big 3 Update: Roger 4, Rafa 3, Novak 3.
Not sure how it will play out, but there's a good chance Novak will top this category by the time they all retire.
Not sure how it will play out, but there's a good chance Novak will top this category by the time they all retire.
Badabing888
Hall of Fame
Who knows? What the last year has shown is tennis can change very quickly. Federer won 20 this time last year and was supposed to be a lock for 21 at Wimbledon.
McEnroe demolished Connors at Wimbledon in 1984 in a similar way to Novak did to Rafa. Both on their favourite court. McEnroe would win one more slam and he was 25/26 and going by age should have won more Slams. Novak could have reached his absolute Zenith yesterday and the difficulty is staying at that incredible level, which people think is a given going forward.
Last edited:
RaulRamirez
Legend
I agree, which is why my prescription (I usually stay away from making them) was hardly a brash one.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Badabing888
Hall of Fame
Prescription? You mean forecast?
Hardly a Brash one? You are saying there is a good chance, which is more than 50%. Yeah if Novak stays on the same trajectory. He could win the French in May v Rafa in a 5 set epic and then his motivation nose dives as we saw post French Open win 2016.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Damn auto-correct! Prediction.
Reread what I wrote. All we were talking about was slams won in their 30s. I only wrote that Novak has a good chance of getting one more than Rafa and two more than Fed in this category. Yes, things can change quickly. We agree. Novak is also the youngest and currently in the best form. Context.
Badabing888
Hall of Fame
Another one: Sampras absolutely demolishing Agassi at Wimbledon 1999 in one of the finest performances seen at Wimbledon. He was 28 going on 29. He would only win 2 more Slams and one in his 30s before retiring.
Difference is Novak has a target to aim for now of 20. As it stands none of the players below him are challenging him and his confidence is rock solid.
Difference is Novak has a target to aim for now of 20. As it stands none of the players below him are challenging him and his confidence is rock solid.
The 69 an 71 AO were highly competitive.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I only have Nadal winning 1 more French next year and not sure about Novak after this year's French.
I'll say I think the record of 4 is the record for a reason although Rosewall won pro majors before OE getting us to 7 so that's the way I see it.
Don't think Nadal is getting to 7 but maybe Novak.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Rosewall, sometimes overlooked, may be the only male champion with greater longevity at/near the top than Fed (so far). If not, then Pancho Gonzalez, though a little harder to qualify. When I was projecting, which I don't really like to do, I was simply comparing Novak in his 30s to Roger and Rafa.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I get that no problem.
Mark-Touch
Legend
Rosewall was already 33 when the open era began. He also won 3 Pro majors past 30. The AO titles Ken and Rod won past 30 were all best of 5 sets.
