The Greatest Tennis Player of All Time – Part 2

In Part 1, I discussed a quantitative approach to determining the greatest tennis player of all time and counted down players 18 through 11. Here in Part 2 I want to complete the countdown from 10 through 1, the GOAT. But first, a brief recap of how the rankings were determined.

Players were awarded points for their Open Era accomplishments, focusing on time spent ranked number 1, grand slam tournament success, and overall match wins. Players were awarded bonus points for notable achievements like winning multiple grand slams in a single season or accomplishing the career grand slam. The specific formula is discussed in detail in Part 1.

Here’s how the players were ranked 18 through 11:¹

18. Jim Courier – 211 total points,
17. Lleyton Hewitt – 211,
16. John Newcombe – 237,
15. Ilie Nastase – 287,
14. Mats Wilander – 288,
13. Novak Djokovic – 295,
12. Boris Becker – 306,
11. Guillermo Vilas – 316.

On to the rest of the list.

The Greatest Players of All Time (Numbers 10 through 1)

10. Stefan Edberg (1983-96)

When I think of Stefan Edberg I picture a suave, blond-haired Swede wearing a sweater vest on court and putting away an easy volley as cool as a cucumber, no sweat on his brow. This isn’t right of course because what Edberg really was was an assassin; perhaps the last of the great pure serve-and-volleyers,² those players who put relentless pressure on their opponents with their net rushing and precise volleys. (It also wasn’t true that Edberg was a super cool Nordic sort, my memory of pretentious sweater vests may be entirely wrong and his penchant for ugly shirts and un-hiply tucking his shirt into his shorts is apparent, see the picture on the right for an example.) Edberg’s career closely shadowed his flashier rival Boris Becker, but by almost any measure, Edberg was more successful. He turned out to be the last in the lineage of dominant Swedish players that included Bjorn Borg and Mats Wilander before him.

Total Points: 327
Weeks Ranked Number 1: 72
Year-End Number 1: 2 (1990-91)
Grand Slams: 6 titles / 5 finals
Career Titles (all): 42
Career Wins (PCT): 806 (0.749)
Other Noteworthy Achievements: Edberg won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and U.S. Open two times apiece. He made one French Open final in 1989 and lost a famous match to 17-year-old Michael Chang in five sets (after leading two sets to one). He was that close to being only the fifth man in the Open Era (and second at that time) to win the career grand slam.

Iconic Moment: 1992 U.S. Open Final. Edberg’s last grand slam victory came at the expense of a young Pete Sampras at the 1992 U.S. Open. I remember watching that match (when I was first getting into the sport) and being impressed by the tenacity and confidence that Edberg used to subdue his younger and more talented opponent. He came back to win the last three sets after dropping the first, and it seemed that by the end he had broken the spirit of the American. Edberg would remain in the top 10 for a couple of more years, but never again win a big tournament.

9. Rod Laver (1962-79)
Rod Laver is the epitome of a player whose accomplishments are obscured by playing before the Open Era. As an amateur in 1962 he won the calendar year grand slam. Having nothing left to prove among amateurs, he turned pro and didn’t compete in another grand slam until the French Open in 1968 (where he lost the final to Ken Rosewall). Then he promptly won the next five grand slams, including all four in 1969 – his second calendar year grand slam and the only one of the Open Era. All told he won 11 grand slams (6 as an amateur). How many would he have won had he played in them in the five seasons between 1963 and ’67, eight, ten, twelve more? In just the Open Era, less than half his career and only a fraction of his peak, he still gets enough points to rank ninth on this list. We can never know, but if the Open Era had started five years sooner, or Rod Laver come along five years later, he could very well be regarded by everyone as the clear greatest player of all time.

Total Points: 351
Weeks Ranked Number 1: 0
Year-End Number 1: 3 (1968-70)
Grand Slams: 5 titles / 1 final
Career Titles (all): 42
Career Wins (PCT): 392 (0.798)
Other Noteworthy Achievements: All told Rod Laver won 200 tournaments over the full length of his career. These are split between his amateur and professional days, and some are not officially counted as tour wins, but it’s the most tournament wins in history.

Iconic Moment: 1969 U.S. Open Final. Laver rolled over countryman Tony Roche (the Australians really did dominate the sport in the 50s and 60s) winning the last three sets easily after dropping a long first set. In doing so he accomplished what Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic never could, win four consecutive grand slams (let alone win them all in the same year).

8. Andre Agassi (1986-2006)

If Rod Laver is the epitome of a player who lost out by turning professional, then Andre Agassi is the epitome of a player who lost out by not being professional enough. Anybody who saw Agassi play knows he was one of the purest ball-strikers ever. He could stand right up on the baseline, take the ball on the rise, hit clean and very hard, all the while running his opponents into the ground. When he focused on his game and his talent, which was spotty, especially during the mid-90s, he was the best player in the world. He rededicated himself to tennis in his late 20s and played to a high level well into his mid-30s until injury forced him to retire after the 2006 U.S. Open. He remains the oldest player ever to be ranked number 1 (33 years old in 2003). His full career is undeniably impressive, but we’re left to wonder how much greater it could have been had he been as dedicated to his talent as, say, his rival Sampras.

Total Points: 482
Weeks Ranked Number 1: 101
Year-End Number 1: 1 (1999)
Grand Slams: 8 titles / 7 finals
Career Titles (all): 60
Career Wins (PCT): 870 (0.760)
Other Noteworthy Achievements: With his victory in the 1999 French Open, Agassi not only achieved the career grand slam, but also the career “golden slam” so named because he had also won the 1996 Olympics singles tournament. At that time the only other player to have accomplished the feat was his future wife Steffi Graf (who won a calendar year golden slam – all four grand slams and the Olympic gold – in 1988). Rafael Nadal joined this club after his U.S. Open victory in 2010.

Iconic Moment: 1999 French Open Final. Agassi’s rededication to tennis finally came to fruition when he won the 1999 French Open. He had lost the 1990 and 1991 finals to journeyman Andres Gomez and lower ranked American Jim Courier, respectively. The first, he later revealed in his autobiography, because he was afraid his weave was going to fall off during the match (that should tell you a lot about the style-over-substance flakiness of the young Agassi). Back then Agassi was seen as the next big thing. By 1999 he was seen as a has-been. But he surprised everyone and won the tournament (although he had to come from two sets down in the final against Andrei Medvedev), became the first man since Rod Laver to achieve a career grand slam, and reignited his career. He would finish 1999 ranked number 1, win four more majors, and become a paragon of fitness and focus.

The Greatest Tennis Player of All Time – Part 1

The tennis tour has entered its short end-of-year hiatus¹. For the first season since 2003, the just completed (2012) tennis season was highly competitive throughout, with no dominant player. Four different men won the four grand slams², and the remaining major tournaments were snatched up by the top five players. It says something that the man who won the most matches and tournaments (76 and 7), fifth ranked David Ferrer, was no one’s pick as the player of the year. In the end, Novak Djokovic was just a bit better than Roger Federer and Andy Murray and finished top ranked for the second consecutive year. Rafael Nadal, despite not playing for the last six months due to a career-threatening knee injury, still finished ranked fourth. It all sets up for an interesting 2013, a season that will kick-off in just five weeks.

I thought this “off-season” break would be a good time to debut my rankings of the Greatest (male) tennis players Of All Time; the proverbial GOATs. In tennis, perhaps more than any other sport, there is long and heated discussion among fans and commentators about who’s the best ever. The entire sport is based on rankings; tournaments are structured on a hierarchy that descends from number 1. And unlike team sports, the discussion of rankings, of greatness, can be focused on each man. Absent are the nuances that make ranking teams (and players in team sports) so difficult, subtleties of teamwork, synergies between players, the interplay of complex team-based tactics and collective talent. No, instead, in tennis it seems that the play of each man – his skill, his will, his mind – are all on display. It’s all there to be witnessed and all measured in his results. There aren't any ambiguities. Points are awarded for every result, and rankings listed. And so it follows that if we can rank tennis players at any given time then we should be able to rank them over all times. We should be able to identify the greatest of all time.

Of course this assertion presumes a lot, or stated differently, it ignores a lot of complicating and uncomfortable factors. Factors like changes in racket and string technology over time; varying court surfaces, qualities, and speeds; the regularly changing structure of the tennis tour and the tournaments that make up the yearly calendar; and of course improving fitness and athleticism, and a general broadening and deepening of the professional tennis field. All these things make it problematic to compare, say, the circa 1969 wood-racket-wielding Rod Laver, charging the net on a fast and dodgy grass court, on the one hand, with the 2006 version of Roger Federer and his hi-tech composite racket whacking heavily top-spinned groundstrokes from the baseline of a slow hard court, one the other. This comparison is at minimum a challenge and perhaps impossible. Laver and Federer will never play one another, so we’ll never really know who the better of the two is. So we should just get this out front and center: determining the greatest player of all time, the real GOAT, is a fan’s fantasy. We can make arguments, but we’ll never have a final answer.

But it’s still fun to have the discussion and to make a case, so in that spirit I’ve developed a quantifiable approach to determine the greatest player of all time.

A Quantitative Approach
Just this past year the Tennis Channel presented a list of the 100 greatest players of all time (men and women), based on career achievements and the perspectives and opinions of tennis players, journalists, and historians. Similar lists have been compiled in the past by Tennis magazine other tennis- and sports-related websites and publications. These lists are always qualitative in nature. They attempt to rank players and identify the best based on a range of factors from day-in-day-out results to stylistic innovations, and influence on the sport, which is all fine by me. If we concede that identifying a GOAT is by nature difficult to impossible, then trying to balance all the factors in a qualitative measure is a reasonable approach. But for a numbers oriented person like me, it’s a whole lot less fun, and well, imprecise.³ So I’ve come up with an approach that considers results and rankings over a full career to rank players and identify the one and only GOAT.

Before I lay out the factors that go into my formula, a few ground rules:

• The list is restricted to the Open Era only, the period that started at the 1968 French Open when professional players were permitted to play in the grand slam tournaments. It’s during the Open Era when all the best players, amateur and professional alike, played in the sport’s biggest tournaments. Before then grand slam results were skewed because many of the best (read: professional) players weren’t there to compete for the titles. I don’t want to gloss over this point, some great players (e.g., Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Poncho Gonzalez) played entirely or mostly before the Open Era and they are completely excluded from my rankings. For players whose careers spanned the Open Era, only the Open Era accomplishments are counted. This is in effect a list of the greatest players of the Open Era.
• The list includes if and for how long a player was ranked number 1, but the rankings didn’t start until 1973, so for the period from 1968 until 1973, the top ranked player (whoever that was at any time) loses out in my system. There’s nothing that can be done about that, though I have identified who would qualify as the year-end number 1 based on the season long results.
• This list is of the top men players. A similar list, using the same approach could be made for women (I should probably dedicate a post to the greatest women players at some point).

The Formula
We’re discussing the very best players, so three broad categories of achievement capture, I think, who’s should be considered as among the best. These are (in no particular order) the time spent ranked number 1, success in grand slam tournaments, and “winning” in the general sense. Number 1 ranking is important because a player can hardly be considered the best if he isn't the best at any given time. Grand slam success is important because the best players win the most prestigious, coveted titles, and overall winning is important because that’s what champions do.

So I’m breaking these three broad categories into 12 specific measures, with points assigned for the discrete accomplishments within each measure. They are:

• Number 1 Ranking – was the player ever ranked number 1 (10 points),
• Weeks Ranked Number 1 – the longer a player was ranked number 1, the longer they could stay above the rest of the field, the more credit they deserve (2 points for every five weeks a player is ranked number 1),
• Year End Number 1 – there is special recognition for being the year-end number 1 because that player was by definition the best player of the season (10 points for each year ending number 1),
• Grand Slam Titles – winning one of the four grand slam tournaments is the highest accomplishment for a tennis player. Each one is highly coveted and very hard to win (seven, best-of-five set matches). These tournaments are also the only tennis achievements that resonate in the larger sports culture. Further, it's only the grand slams that can be compared over time, as most other tournaments come in and out of existence over relatively short periods of time, especially in the pre-ATP Tour era (15 points for each title),
• Grand Slam Finals – just making a grand slam final is noteworthy, and I think it’s fair to say that appearing in a grand slam final is a greater achievement than winning a lesser tournament (5 points for each grand slam final loss),
• Calendar Year Grand Slam – winning all four grand slams in one year is the greatest accomplishment in tennis and deserves bonus points for the difficulty of the feat and the historic nature of the accomplishment (50 points for each calendar year grand slam),
• 3 Grand Slams in One Year – winning three of the four grand slams in one year is a rare feat (at least until recently) and demonstrates clear dominance over the rest of the tennis field. It deserves bonus points for the difficulty of the feat (25 points for each year winning three grand slams),
• 2 Grand Slams in One Year – winning two of the four grand slams in one year is a clear indication of superior play and deserves bonus points for the difficulty of the feat (10 points for each year winning two grand slams),
• Career Grand Slam – winning all four grand slams at least once is a very rare feet (almost as rare as winning a calendar year grand slam) and deserves bonus points for the difficulty and historic nature of the accomplishment (50 points for a career grand slam),
• Titles – winning tournaments (other than the grand slams) is what the best players do (3 points for each (non-grand slam) title),
• Career Match Wins – winning matches is the core of being a great player (1 point for every 20 match wins),
• Career Winning Percentage – the best players should win a high percentage of their matches (1 point for a 0.700 winning percentage, with one additional point for each 0.010 increment over 0.700).

Add all the points up and you get a player’s total; the higher the score, the better. I make no claims that this is a definitive inventory of the elements that should go into determining the best of all time, or that the points allocated for each measure are appropriate. The old axiom of garbage in, garbage out should be heeded with any formulation like this; it has to pass the sniff test. I think this approach is at least a reasonable start, but let’s see how it computes for an individual player, and I’ll go ahead and pick the current number 1 player, Novak Djokovic.

Novak Djokovic’s GOAT Points:

• No. 1 Ranking: 10 points (he’s currently ranked No. 1),
• Weeks Ranked No. 1: 24.8 points (he’ll have been ranked No. 1 for 62 weeks through the end of this year),
• Year End No. 1: 20 points (he’s been year-end No. 1 twice, 2011 and 2012),
• Grand Slam Titles: 75 points (he’s won five grand slams),
• Grand Slam Finals: 20 points (he’s appeared in four other grand slam finals),
• Calendar Year Grand Slam: 0 points (no calendar year grand slam),
• 3 Grand Slams in One Year: 25 points (he won three grand slams in 2011),
• 2 Grand Slams in One Year: 0 points (he’s never won as many as two grand slams in any other year),
• Career Grand Slam: 0 points (Novak has never won French Open),
• Titles: 87 points (he has won 29 non-grand slam tournaments),
• Career Match Wins: 23 points (he has won 469 matches over his career so far),
• Career Winning Percentage: 10 points (he has a career 0.792 match winning percentage).

You add all of those points up and you get a total of 295 points (rounding to the nearest point). At the risk of taking some suspense out of this list, the total of 295 points put Djokovic thirteenth among Open Era players. That seems reasonable to me. Certainly Djokovic has put himself into the discussion as one of the best ever, but he hasn’t done enough just yet to be among the top 5 or even 10. (It’s safe to say that baring major injury or some hard to imagine loss of form, he’ll be climbing this list in the coming years.)

So, the formula passes the basic test of reasonability, I applied it to every player who was ranked number 1 or won a grand slam in the Open Era. The results make sense to me, but judge for yourself. Eighteen players amassed at least 200 points (arbitrary number), so that’s where I’ll start the countdown of the greatest players of all time.

Farewell, Andy Roddick

by Conroy

Andy Roddick at the 2012 U.S. Open

Andy Roddick lost today – after a characteristically hard fight – in the fourth round of the U.S. Open, beaten decisively by 2009 champion Juan Martin Del Potro in the conclusion of their rain-interrupted match from last night. It is the last match, the final loss, of his career. Roddick surprised the sports world when he announced his retirement prior to his second round match. He cited the increasing frequency of injuries and his flagging commitment as the key factors driving his decision. Unlike other past champions¹, Roddick said he wouldn’t be satisfied to, in his words, merely “exist on tour.” Roddick’s results have been slipping over the last year and a half and he’s been sidelined, seemingly, by one injury after another. This has led to whispers and speculation about how long Roddick would keep going, so it wasn’t a huge shock when he announced his decision to call it a career, but the timing – right in the middle of the biggest American tournament of the year – was unexpected. It added a buzz to his final matches as the New York crowd had only these last few opportunities to cheer him on. But it also provides an opportunity to reflect on Roddick’s long, successful, and in many ways frustrating career.

I’ve written a lot about tennis on this blog, but I’ve always focused on the play and changing dynamics of the very top players, especially Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. My interest in the top of the game is natural; these have been the men winning the big titles and etching their many impressive accomplishments in the tennis history books. Over the last seven plus years they’ve won just about every tournament of importance, leaving precious little for the rest of the field. Andy Roddick has been one of those players left in their wake. Compared to the best he has been, by any clear-eyed assessment, a minor champion. But it didn’t look this way when Roddick broke onto the scene.

Andy and Roger
It’s impossible to consider Roddick’s career without comparison with his direct contemporary, Roger Federer. Federer has of course dominated tennis for most of the last decade, and his stature and accomplishments have overshadowed all others (with the lone exception of Nadal). But no one’s career has suffered from Federer’s dominance as much as Roddick’s.

Ten years ago, 20-year-old Roddick shot into the top ten behind a monstrous serve and forehand. Back then Roddick could hit his serve at over 150 mph², and his serve-forehand combination was hard to contend with. He looked to have the game to be the next big thing, picking up the torch of American tennis from the aging Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras. Of course there was another guy who had settled into the top ten who was also being called the next big thing³. And unfortunately for Roddick, this other guy had his number. Federer beat Roddick the first four times they played, including in the semi-finals of the 2003 Wimbledon en route to his first grand slam. Still, the Roddick-Federer matchup promised to be one of the great new rivalries in the sport.

Roddick finally beat Federer in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. Open, and carried that momentum⁴ to the championship, the first of what looked to be many grand slam titles. Roddick’s victory in New York and his overall season lifted him to the top of the rankings for the 2003 season, one spot ahead of Federer. At 21⁵ he was the best player in the world.

Federer took the top ranking from Roddick in early 2004 after he won his second grand slam at the Australian Open, but in midsummer at Wimbledon Roddick had a great chance to get on top of their burgeoning rivalry. He faced Federer in the Wimbledon final. A victory would avenge his semi-final loss from the year before and give him two grand slams, equal to Federer, and the number 1 ranking. The match was played under sodden gray skies, but the gloomy weather didn’t seem to faze Roddick. He came out playing brilliant tennis, serving masterfully and striking rocket forehands on the way to taking the first set. He had Federer back on his heels and was getting the better of many of the baseline exchanges. Federer managed to squeeze out the second, but Roddick was leading 4-2 in the third when the skies, threatening rain all day, finally opened. Roddick left the court with the initiative, and it’s worth pausing at this moment; perhaps the high water mark of his career, beating Roger Federer at Wimbledon, on the cusp of a career-defining victory. But it wasn’t to be. Federer used the rain delay to his advantage, diagnosing Roddick’s game plan. When play resumed he changed tactics by attacking the net and seized the momentum. He broke Roddick immediately and took the third set in a one-sided tiebreaker. Federer’s maintained his level and served out the match in four sets. Right up until this Wimbledon final there was little to choose between the players, Roddick had potent weapons and Federer had a formidably all-around game. But from this match on their career trajectories bifurcated sharply; Roddick would never again be in Federer’s league.

Federer went on to dominate in a historic fashion, winning more grand slam titles and holding the top ranking for longer than any other man. Roddick began a slow fade. He ended 2004 ranked number 2, but was passed by Nadal in 2005, and then by others in the ensuing years. He reached the 2005 Wimbledon and 2006 U.S. Open finals⁶, and was beaten by Federer in each. Roddick continued to win, but never seemed to come through in the big matches. His (relatively) plodding movement and underpowered backhand were weaknesses that more and more players learned to exploit. Even his vaunted serve and forehand seemed to lose a little of their sting as the years passed. His year-end ranking shows this steady (if relatively slow) decline:

• 2003 – 1, 
• 2004 – 2, 
• 2005 – 3, 
• 2006 – 6, 
• 2007 – 6, 
• 2008 – 8, 
• 2009 – 7, 
• 2010 – 8, 
• 2011 – 14, 
• 2012 (as of 9/4) – 22.

Roger Federer and the 2012 Tennis Season

by Conroy

Roger Federer victorious at Wimbledon for the seventh time

Roger Federer collapsed awkwardly to the grass as Andy Murray’s backhand passing shot, the last stroke of the 2012 Wimbledon Championships, fell wide of the sideline. The Centre Court crowd cheered in appreciation as they watched the Swiss champion defeat their local hope¹. Federer had won another Wimbledon title, his seventh, had won another grand slam tournament, his 17^th, and reclaimed the number 1 ranking (all records). His fall to the turf was just about the only ungraceful step he took all day. His tennis was, by any measure, a sublime, vintage display as he outplayed an in-form Murray (and subdued the wildly expectant and partisan British audience) to win the competitive match 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4. With this latest win he is once again the king of tennis, the mighty Roger Federer, the greatest player of all time.

Perhaps no two points encapsulate just how well Federer played then the two points that ended the second set. The score is 5-6, 30-30 with Murray, leading the match after having won a close first set, serving to take the second set to a tiebreaker. The players engage in a neutral baseline rally before Federer rips an inside-out forehand off a short mid-court ball deep into Murray’s backhand corner. Murray plays a smart soft backhand up the line but Federer has anticipated it and streaks to cut the ball off at the service line, hitting a great drop volley that Murray, despite all his speed, can barely reach and pushes long of the baseline. Now the score is 30-40, set point. Again the players engage in a baseline rally until Federer hits a short angled forehand to Murray’s forehand sideline. Murray is forced to lunge for the ball hitting it back to Federer who then rips a backhand crosscourt to Murray’s backhand corner. The Scot scrambles madly to get to the ball, but Federer has anticipated a weak crosscourt reply and is already sprinting toward the net, where he intercepts the ball near the service line and plays one of the most exquisite drop volleys you’ll ever see, the ball landing close to the net and literally bouncing low and sideways off the turf, and making its second bounce (and stopping cold) before the sprinting Murray can reach it. The set was Federer’s and from then on the outcome of the match was never in doubt. These points highlight what Federer tennis is all about, variety, sharp ball striking, point construction and anticipation, and jaw-dropping shot making (I let out an audible gasp on seeing that set point). Match highlights (including these two points) can be viewed here.

Coming into the 2012 tennis season few projected the renaissance of Roger Federer. The whispers were of a fading champion whose time of winning had passed. When I last wrote about tennis before the major clay court tournaments leading into the French Open (Roland Garros), I suggested three likely outcomes as the tour went through the heart of the season from the European clay-court spring through the U.S. Open in September. My least likely outcome (of three possible) was Federer regaining the number 1 ranking. So how did he do it and where does that leave his main (and recently dominant) rivals Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal? And what about the rest of the men’s field?

2012 from Australia to Wimbledon
2012 has been a highly competitive year – between the three men that continue to dominate tennis. And unlike last year, when the story was repeatedly Novak Djokovic besting Rafael Nadal, 2012 has seen Federer elbow his way back into the mix. Compare the major tournament winners from the last two years:

Tournament	2011		2012
	Winner	Finalist	Winner	Finalist
Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	Andy Murray	Djokovic	Rafael Nadal
Indian Wells	Djokovic	Nadal	Roger Federer	John Isner
Miami	Djokovic	Nadal	Djokovic	Murray
Monte Carlo	Nadal	David Ferrer	Nadal	Djokovic
Madrid	Djokovic	Nadal	Federer	Tomas Berdych
Rome	Djokovic	Nadal	Nadal	Djokovic
Roland Garros	Nadal	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
Wimbledon	Djokovic	Nadal	Federer	Murray

Federer stated after his Wimbledon win that after last year's disappointing losses he was determined to take a more offensive approach into his matches with Djokovic and Nadal. That’s been clear tactic in recent matches. Unfortunately, that approach is blunted on slow clay, but on hard courts, especially fast hard courts, and grass, it is a winning strategy. So in the table above we see Federer’s name on the winner’s line in several big tournaments in 2012 where he was absent in 2011 (including the novel, fast, and apparently very slippery blue clay featured this year - for the first and last time - in Madrid). (What this table also shows is that no other man has been able to break through and win a big tournament. 2012 has been competitive amongst the “Big 3”, but the field still lags behind. Through Wimbledon, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have won 30 of the last 31 grand slam titles².)

Nadal playing - and beating - Djokovic at Roland Garros

It’s also clear the Novak Djokovic has been less consistent this year than last. Last year he was winning on all surfaces, this year he hasn’t. That led to a major shift that was all the talk in the tennis world before Wimbledon, Rafael Nadal getting the better of Djokovic on the European clay courts, changing the dynamic from last year and positioning the Spaniard for greater success in 2012, more grand slams, and the number 1 ranking. The clay courts in Paris played very slow this year, conditions perfect for Nadal and his impenetrable clay court defense. He sliced through his draw (seven doomed men as Pete Bodo labeled them) and despite a temporary hiccup in the final against Djokovic³ he emphatically won his 11^th grand slam. The title was his record seventh at Roland Garros, and was correctly hailed as a historic accomplishment, leaving no one in doubt that Nadal is the greatest clay court player in history. Most pundits picked him to carry his success onto grass and claim another Wimbledon title. Instead, and as proof that all glory is fleeting, he was famously upset by unknown Lukas Rosol in the second round (it’s worth watching Rosol’s unbelievable performance⁴, see highlights here). Nadal’s 2012 was not going to be a repeat of his 2010 or even 2008.

Roger Federer nearly lost the next day as he had to fight back from two sets down to beat journeyman Julien Benneteau in the third round. He was two points from defeat on five separate occasions. A few points here and there make all the difference. He fought through back issues in his next match. But he found his best form and full fitness for the last three matches, including an impressive win over defending champion Djokovic in the semi-finals. The Wimbledon triumph was a culmination of Federer’s resurgence. Last year he repeatedly lost to Nadal and Djokovic (1-7 through the U.S. Open), but this year he hasn’t (2-3 so far and 2-1 on hard courts and grass), including beating Nadal on the way to the Indian Wells title. The balance of power in tennis rests on who wins and loses a handful of key matches. This year Federer has won some of the matches that last year he lost. Last year he was clearly number 3, this year the top 3 have been much closer.

Just consider how each man won at this year’s grand slams: Djokovic beat Nadal to win in Australia, Nadal beat Djokovic to win at Roland Garros, and Federer beat Djokovic to win Wimbledon. If any of these results were different, then the rankings and storylines would be too.

2012 After Wimbledon
So what might we expect for the rest of the season? I don’t make predictions but I feel confident in writing that the remainder of the 2012 tennis season will continue to be dominated by Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. There is little evidence to suggest otherwise. They’ve won every big tournament so far and until someone else breaks up their hegemony (which we’ve been waiting for years to happen) there’s little reason to think they won’t continue to do so. So focusing on them, let’s first consider in a little more detail what has happened so far this year. Here are their season records through Wimbledon:

The Heart of the Season

by Conroy

I last wrote about tennis three months ago after Novak Djokovic defeated Rafael Nadal in the longest grand slam final [1] in tennis history to claim his third Australian Open title. That result was a continuation of last year when Djokovic won in Melbourne and went on to dominate the season, claiming titles in just about every tournament he played through the U.S. Open, winning three grand slams, ten titles overall, and defeating Rafael Nadal six times along the way [2].

But 2012 isn’t turning out to be another 2011. Novak Djokovic remains number 1, but 2012 hasn’t started out as another year of dominance. Instead, the top three players – Djokovic, Nadal, and Roger Federer – have amassed remarkably similar results:

Player	2012 Record	Win %	Grand Slam Titles	Masters 1000 Titles	Other Titles
1.    Novak Djokovic	24-3	0.888	1	1	0
2.    Rafael Nadal	27-3	0.900	0	1	1
3.    Roger Federer	23-3	0.885	0	1	2

Djokovic has the big crown with his hard won Australian Open title, but each of the three men have claimed one of three Masters 1000 titles played this spring, and Nadal and Federer have picked up additional titles [3]. They’re records are strikingly similar with each man losing just three matches through the first four months of the season (which makes Djokovic’s run last year, where he didn’t lose his third match until mid-September, all the more remarkable). What’s more, of their nine combined losses, four have been to each other [4].

These results tell me two things: (1) the top-3 men remain head and shoulders above the rest of the tour, certainly when it comes to the winning the big matches, and (2) as we head into the heart of the tennis season, the race for number 1 in 2012 is very much up for grabs.

We’ve reached the start of four frantic months of major tournaments, starting with the Masters 1000 events in Madrid and Rome and followed by the grand slams at Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Then after a very brief respite there will be the London Olympics [5], the Canada and Cincinnati Masters 1000 events, and finally the U.S. Open.

Last year, with the notable exception of Roland Garros [6], this stretch belonged to Djokovic, where he won five of the seven major tournaments played, including Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, and claimed the number 1 ranking. What will this same stretch bring this year? I don’t make predictions, but I foresee a few possibilities (listed from most to least probable):

Djokovic Retains the Number 1 Ranking

One perspective would hold that Djokovic has nowhere to go but down. After winning so much last year anything less than a repeat performance would see him bleed rankings points and come back to Nadal and Federer. And indeed, if Djokovic fails to win at least one of the three grand slams this summer (and probably one or two of the other big tournaments) he’ll likely lose his top ranking.

However, the bottom line is the Serb has won the biggest tournament played this year (Australian Open) and arguably the most prestigious tournament after the grand slams (Miami). He lost in the finals of Monte Carlo to Nadal and the semi-finals of Indian Wells to an inspired John Isner. These results don’t indicate someone who has lost their focus or game. In my mind he’s a 50-50 bet to win Roland Garros, and believe me he’ll be focused and motivated in Paris a month from now as he goes for the career grand slam and four consecutive grand slam titles [7]. The same can be said for Wimbledon and he’s a clear favorite at the U.S. Open. Djokovic has a lot to defend, but there are not enough reasons to think he'll fail to win enough to stay at the top of the rankings and add to his grand slam title count.

Nadal Regains the Number 1 Ranking
It’s unsurprising that Rafael Nadal regained his winning ways once he got back on red clay, triumphing dominantly in his last two tournaments at Monte Carlo and Barcelona (for the eighth and seventh time, respectively). He beat Djokovic for the first time since 2010 at Monte Carlo (a result this writer predicted – I have witnesses), which got a huge monkey off his back and has to give him a lot of confidence heading to Roland Garros. I predict (okay, sometimes I make predictions) that Nadal and Djokovic will play again in the next couple of weeks at either Madrid or Rome, and if Nadal can backup his Monte Carlo win then he’ll have to be considered the favorite to win at Roland Garros for a record seventh time.

Unfortunately for Nadal, winning a Roland Garros won’t get him back to the top of the rankings. The Spaniard will have to overcome the Serb (and Federer) at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open. Nadal can do it, he’s a hell of a competitor and he’s won both tournaments before. Still, beating Djokovic on a really big stage is something Nadal will have to re-prove. He has the ignominious distinction of being the only man to lose three consecutive grand slam finals, all to Djokovic of course. Until he turns that around, he won’t be reclaiming the top ranking.

Federer Regains the Number 1 Ranking

The casual fan may not realize that after last year’s U.S. Open the player with the best record, most tournament titles, and whose accumulated the most rankings points is Roger Federer (40-3, 6 titles, 4,855). The 30-year-old is off to his best start since 2007 – when he was still the dominant number 1 – and he will have his opportunity to get back to number 1 this summer. But to do it he’ll have to overcome Djokovic and/or Nadal at two of the three grand slams. Winning one grand slam almost certainly won’t be good enough.

Federer can do this, but he’s been utterly unable to solve Nadal at Roland Garros, losing to him there five times in the last seven years (keep in mind that his one Roland Garros title in 2009 came when he didn’t have to play Nadal). I don’t see that changing this year. And Federer might have to beat both Djokovic and Nadal, which on slow clay at this point in time seems like too tall a task. So then to get back to number 1 Federer would have to win both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. I think this is possible, he’s been just as good as Nadal and Djokovic at the U.S. Open the last couple of years (holding match points against the Serb in the semi-finals each of the last two years), and if he plays well at Wimbledon he can add to his collection of six winner’s trophies. The problem is that his two rivals are playing just too well. Federer has a decent chance to win one grand slam but winning two will be very difficult. He might be back at number 1 come September, but it’s a long shot.

Warrior Tennis

by Conroy

Djokovic and Nadal weary after nearly six hours of play

Have we seen the limit of tennis? I mean, really, can the sport get any better? Much has already been written, deservedly, about the remarkable Australian Open final, won this past Sunday [1] by Novak Djokovic over Rafael Nadal; a nearly six hour match – six hours! – of energy-sapping intensity and dramatic competitive swings. This is just the latest, perhaps the ultimate culmination, in what is surely one of the glory times for the sport. We fans must count ourselves lucky that we get to watch three of the greatest players of all time – and yes, Djokovic has now entered that discussion – battle in so many riveting matches on tennis’ biggest stages.

One startling statistic communicates the hegemony that Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and now Novak Djokovic have established over tennis: Since the 2005 French Open – the last seven years – they have won 27 of 28 grand slam tournaments [2]. These three have and continue to demonstrate how far the bounds of excellence can be pushed. But along with the brilliance and athleticism come the compelling narratives that leave commentators (including this writer) searching for appropriate descriptions.

Tennis is often compared to other sports. Boxing is a favorite of the TV analyst types as players are described as landing “body blows” or going for the “knockout”, or engaged in a “heavyweight struggle.” This analogy seems fitting given the lonely one-on-one nature of tennis and more so as the sport has gotten more physical. Tennis is also compared to a mental struggle, a kind of hyper-kinetic chess, or as an ultimate test of men, a gladiator’s duel. Loftier still are comparisons of today’s top players to Greek mythical heroes, meeting in dramatic epical battles [3]. The fact that tennis matches are commonly compared to wars and battles [4] is a further expression of this perception. There may be hints of truth in these comparisons, but I think they miss something essential, something that can only be understood by examining the dominance and defeat of each man.

The Rise of Roger Federer

There will never be a perfect player, but by the end of 2003 the 22-year-old Roger Federer had become what many believed to be the next closest thing. Watching Federer in his prime, as David Foster Wallace famously wrote [5], was a religious experience. He was at once fast, graceful, and powerful. But these words don’t do him justice. He was more like the full embodiment of speed and grace and power. His shot-making was beautiful and brutally effective. His intelligence was obvious from how he constructed points, to the shots he chose to play, to his uncanny ability to anticipate and read opponents. He was a virtuoso; he owned every shot in the book and used them in ways no one had seen before. I’ll give you one of my favorite examples from the middle of the tense fifth set of the 2007 Wimbledon Final against Nadal.

Federer leads three games to two and is ahead in Nadal’s service game 0-15. Nadal, a lefty, hits a serve to Federer’s backhand, like he almost always does in the ad (left side) court, and Federer slices a short return into the middle of the court, forcing Nadal to come into the net. Nadal hits a forehand with heavy topspin deep into Federer’s backhand corner and follows this shot even closer to the net. Federer flicks a backhand to Nadal’s backhand side but above the Spaniard’s head. Nadal hits the only real shot available, a backhand crosscourt volley, and it’s good, bouncing low. But Federer has anticipated the shot and sprints along his baseline picking up the low ball and beating Nadal with a perfectly measured forehand pass. Now it’s 0-30 and Nadal again hits a serve to Federer’s backhand, up the “T” (middle) in the deuce (right side) court. Federer hits a neutral backhand return back down the center of the court to Nadal, who then hits a hard forehand to Federer’s forehand side. Nadal is anticipating a crosscourt forehand and has moved a couple of steps to his right. But instead Federer drills a deep, heavily top-spinned forehand into Nadal’s forehand corner. The ball is so well struck and such a surprise that even at a full gallop and stretch Nadal can’t reach it and it goes past him for another winner. Two points later and it’s 15-40. Nadal hits a body serve that Federer fights off with a floating forehand to Nadal’s backhand side. Nadal backs-up and hits a hard forehand deep the Federer’s backhand. Federer hits a hard backhand right back to Nadal who hits a backhand down the left (his right) sideline. Federer quickly scampers to the ball and hits a lofted backhand back toward Nadal but deep, just inside Nadal’s baseline. Nadal is forced to retreat and hits a neutral forehand to Federer’s forehand, where Federer, still on his backhand side of the court, hits a hard forehand near the left (Nadal’s right) sideline. This shot foreces Nadal to hit a crosscourt backhand which Federer anticipates and moves quickly to his right across to the deuce side of the court, easily tracking it down and responding with a crosscourt forehand. Nadal hits a hard backhand into the center of the court that Federer counters with a hard low slice backhand that barely clears the net and forces Nadal to scramble just to get to the ball. He’s forced to hit a short crosscourt forehand. Federer literally skips to his left and near his left sideline strikes a gorgeous forehand smack onto the left sideline past Nadal for a winner and the decisive break. These few critical points show Federer’s variety, intelligence, and wicked shot-making.

I can go on and on lauding his, well, magnificence, but seeing the real thing is better than reading about it, so check out these highlights. His game had (and still has) a genius, an originality and style and potency that can make you shout out loud in amazement while watching alone from your living room. I’ve noted his feats in previous posts, but from the end of 2003 through the end of 2007 he won 11 grand slams (of 16 played), won over 93% of his matches, and beat the other top players not named Nadal like a drum going 69-2 against Top 10 opponents – all feats unparalleled in tennis history. But if Federer was a tennis Superman there was definitely a kryptonite.

The Rise of Rafael Nadal
Federer made an interesting comment during the on-court interview following his 2007 Wimbledon win, stating that he was glad he won this match before Nadal won them all. In the moment it was probably intended as a compliment and as admittance that the match was a close-run thing. Indeed it was, and Federer’s remarks proved prescient, he hasn’t beaten Nadal in a grand slam match since (0-5).

Not long after Federer began dominating tennis there came the meteoric rise of Rafael Nadal, a tennis phenom. Here was the rare player who rose to the upper echelon of the game as a teenager, winning his first grand slam, the 2005 French Open, just after his 19^th birthday; the first teen to do so since a 19-year-old Pete Sampras won the 1990 U.S. Open. His game was distinguished by its pure physicality. Nadal was blurry fast, he could run forever without tiring, his forehand was hit with tremendous power and an unprecedented amount of topspin. He was also metronomic-ally consistent hitting that forehand, and his strong two-handed backhand, shot after shot until, seemingly inevitably, his opponents made an error or grew impatient and forced (and missed) a risky shot. Add to that an unmatched competitive focus and determination – Nadal never takes a point off and never puts less than full effort into every exchange. This combination of skills and focus made him virtually unbeatable on clay where he set a never-to-be-beaten record of 81 consecutive match wins between 2005 and 2007. He beat Roger Federer in the French Open each year from 2005 through 2008, the last three in the final. The 2006 and 2007 final loses were Federer’s only defeats at a grand slam in those years. Why did Nadal give Federer, the perfect player, such trouble?