- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 4,572
- Reactions
- 3,216
- Points
- 113
Five "Random" years. Are they random though? Or are these years where Nadal played well and won? You make it sound like a coin flip. Clearly, there are two aspects to this: One is about consistency and dominance (winning 5 straight in 5 years), the other is about consistency and longevity (winning 4 over a period of 9 years, two of which coming in your 30's) and if the latter was easy, then maybe Fed would have won a US Open in the past 11 years. I agree 5 straight is more impressive and it says a lot about Roger in his prime but let's not act like Nadal winning so many over such a long period of time is just some random achievement.
Actually this stat is a good microcosm of the slam count. It still doesn't "feel" to me like Nadal won just 1 slam fewer than Roger. It feels like Roger won more. However, the reason it feels that way is because he was so dominant and won so many in a condensed period of time (which is hugely impressive mind you), while Nadal won them over a longer period and was more consistent in terms of not going through dry spells as long as the one Roger went through. It's also a testament to Nadal turning into a great tennis player at an earlier age than Roger as he started winning in his teens.
Broken, here are the stats to support your correct assessments:
Number of years to win at least 1 slam title:
1. Nadal - 13 years
2. Federer - 11 years
3. Djokovic - 9 years
Number of years to win at least 2 titles:
1. Federer - 6 years
2. Nadal/Djokovic - 5 years
Number of years to win at least 3 titles:
1. Federer - 3 years
2. Djokovic - 2 years
3. Nadal - 1 year
As you could see above that while Nadal does not win slams in condensed time, he is the most consistent out of the Big Three in winning slam titles.