Slam results - consistency and era

[El Dude]

I have often been struck by how amazingly consistent some of the contemporary great players are, and how it seems they are far more consistent in terms of Slam results than in past eras. I wanted to see if my hunch was correct, so I looked at all players who had won 4+ Slams in the Open Era (except for Ken Rosewall), plus Andy Murray added in the mix (as the player currently active with the best chance at 4+ Slams). I came up with a list of 16 players, who I then checked for a few statistics: total Slams, Quarterfinal appearances, % of Slams that were QF or better, Streaks of QF appearances at Slams, and years in which the player was in the QF of all Slams he appeared in (minimum 2 appearances).

The results were somewhat surprising. First of all, when I compared the Big Four to the previous generation of greats, namely Sampras and Agassi, but also Courier, I found that the Big Four are far more consistent. Here are those players:

QF% (longest QF streak, years of all QF)
Murray: 62% (15, 4)
Djokovic: 75% (22, 5)
Nadal: 69% (11, 4)
Federer: 69% (36, 8)
Sampras: 56% (11, 2)
Agassi: 59% (6, 5)
Courier: 36% (5, 0)

As you can see, the recent greats--in particular Djokovic and Federer--have been more consistent. Rafa's QF% is the same as Roger's, but his penchant for occasionally going out earlier has reduced his overall consistency. What really stands out for me in ths list are two things - Novak's amazing QF%, and Roger's ridiculous streak of 36 straight Slams, plus his 8 years of making at least the QF in all Slams.

Let's dial back to another generation plus:
Becker: 50% (5, 1)
Edberg: 48% (5, 1)
Wilander: 45% (7, 2)
Lendl: 60% (13, 5)
McEnroe: 58% (10, 4)

As always, Becker and Edberg are neck-and-neck. Wilander was great in spurts, but bad in other years. Lendl was remarkably consistent in a very competitive era. Overall it seems the numbers are in line with Agassi and Sampras.

One more jump:
Borg: 78% (12, 6)
Vilas: 39% (8, 3)
Connors: 72% (27, 12)
Newcombe: 55% (8, 2)

Clearly Borg's numbers are skewed by his shortened career. Connors' numbers are surprisingly good, but we need to remember that in a lot of years he (and Borg) only played two or three Slams, which is easier to make it far in every appearance.

So while it seems that the current group of greats are historically more consistent than most eras, there's a range across the decades, so it doesn't seem clear that the factors of the game today allow for greater consistency (the so-called court homogeneity), or if it simply could be that the current crop is just so damn good. I imagine its a combination of both.

What do you think?

 

[shawnbm]

I think it is a combination of both, to the question posed at the end. Then again, I knew in my guy that Connors, Borg and Lendl would show up well for long term consistency and going deep in slams. Now, Connors lacked a few French Opens in the mid to late Seventies and both he and Borg failed on many a year to go down to Australia, but so did Lendl--although things started changing in the Eighties. It should be no surprise that the Big Three (sorry Andy--until you win a couple more) really can only be compared to Connors, Borg, Lendl and then really only Sampras. Everybody else is just a notch below these guys, although Nole could be said to be in a tie with Agassi and McEnroe as "first alternate" if there is only room for the top 6 (Laver and Rosewall excepted due to playing in the Sixties mostly) at the tennis immortals table.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I agree with your general rankings, shawnbm, although you leave out John Newcombe, who deserves mention and is often forgotten about. He did play a larger portion of his career before the Open Era but was a #1 and won five of his seven Slams in the Open Era. Not including Laver and Rosewall, I'd rate the Open Era greats like follows:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Djokovic
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10-12. Wilander-Edberg-Becker (in some order; I really can't rate these guys)
13. Newcombe

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher. I think that before he's done, Novak will displace Lendl and Connors and be in the top five (and yeah, I realize that many see Connors as better than Lendl, but I given Ivan the edge). If Borg hadn't retired he'd probably be vying with Roger and Rafa for #1, but alas...

 

[Front242]

Well Borg retired 'cos he'd lost his passion for the game. Not due to injuries or anything else so it's hard to tell how many, if indeed any more slams he'd actually have won if he continued playing. Losing interest in the sport is the ultimate downward spiral as you're not going to win slams merely going through the motions. You need to still love the sport and have the desire to compete and win. Borg no longer had that and hence his decision to retire so young.

 

[tented]

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher.

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

 

[Riotbeard]

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher.

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

You rafa fans put a lot on the golden slam...

To be fair Dude explicitly stated he would probably rate agassi higher now, but he expects Novak to pass him. I am not sure the Golden slam means so much anymore given homogenization of surface speeds. Still a great accomplishment, but it meant more when you had to win on both very fast and very slow courts. But we will see. Novak and Andre are my two all time favorites (Novak over Andre) so I am ok with them being neck and neck with Andre currently ahead.

 

[Riotbeard]

Also great post dude. Very interesting stuff.

 

[tented]

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher.

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

You rafa fans put a lot on the golden slam...

Having won every major at least once, and the Olympic Gold Medal, is a significant and rare achievement. Do you think guys like Djokovic and Federer wouldn't want to be on this short list? Is there any athlete who wouldn't want the gold medal in their sport?

To be fair Dude explicitly stated he would probably rate agassi higher now, but he expects Novak to pass him.

Yes, I read that, but nevertheless Novak winning even one more major isn't a given (nothing is), therefore he shouldn't be pushed up the list based on results which haven't taken place, and may never.

I am not sure the Golden slam means so much anymore given homogenization of surface speeds. Still a great accomplishment, but it meant more when you had to win on both very fast and very slow courts. But we will see.

You Novak fans love to downplay the golden slam ...

 

[El Dude]

Now now, folks.

Let me further explain my ranking Djokovic higher. As was clarified, I would actually rank Agassi higher if Novak retired tomorrow. But Novak isn't retiring so far, so we have to keep in mind at least the possibility of what will be. Also, Novak has--through his age 27 year (7 Slams, 19 Masters, 3 WTFs)--been a far greater player than Agassi was through age 27 (1997), when he had 3 Slams, 9 Masters, 1 Masters Cup, and the Gold medal. Now Agassi had an unusually great latter part of his career, and it seems unlikely (but possible) that Novak will be similarly great going forward. But my point is that Novak has been a more dominant player through age 27, and chances are he'll play another 4-5+ years and win some more tournaments.

But even just accounting for Agassi vs. Novak through 2014, Novak was a greater peak player than Agassi ever was. In a way its similar to comparing someone like Sampras to Borg, yet Novak's overall accomplishments are far closer to Andre's than Borg's are to Pete's.

 

[Federberg]

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher.

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

In my opinion the Olympics singles is a 'nice to have', I'm not sure that it pads ones resume that much. And before anyone get's on their low donkey I would say the same whether Federer had won it or not. We've had this discussion before... I feel the same way about DC (even more so).

Even then.. you have to give the edge to Agassi for now. For slam count, for tournament wins and longevity. There's no question in my mind that when all is said and done, Novak will leave Andre far behind, barring a catastrophe of course

 

[shawnbm]

The Golden Slam thing is of recent vintage and one I don't place much import on. It is outside of traditional tennis major events and comes along too infrequently to be on the same par as majors, or even the WTF or historic Masters events. Since it is out there, though, why not try and win it? As of now, we have Agassi and Nadal with gold medals. but I honestly can't recall who else won gold medals in tennis at the Olympics.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher.

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

In my opinion the Olympics singles is a 'nice to have', I'm not sure that it pads ones resume that much. And before anyone get's on their low donkey I would say the same whether Federer had won it or not. We've had this discussion before... I feel the same way about DC (even more so).

Even then.. you have to give the edge to Agassi for now. For slam count, for tournament wins and longevity. There's no question in my mind that when all is said and done, Novak will leave Andre far behind, barring a catastrophe of course

I would say it was "nice to have" in the 90's and before, but now it's a significant title. Why? It's simple really. Look at how much players want it, the importance the attribute to it, what it means to them to win it, etc... When players prioritize the Olympics over any non-major tournament, that's all the endorsement the Olympics need.

 

[shawnbm]

I must also say that we know Borg helped Wilander get ready for the 1982 French Open and a couple of weeks before the French began they played each other three sets on the court. Borg demolished Mats something like 1 1 and 2--according to Mats, who added that he was trying his best to hang with his superstar compatriot. So, would Borg have won the French in 1982? This is one occasion where I would take that out of the realm of speculation and say, barring injury, he would most certainly have won it. Going forward from there? Iffy, but he was as sure a thing there as Rafa has been the past decade in Paris, if not more so (Borg did not have Federers and Djokovics at his heels). I am not one to speculate generally, but I take Mats at his word and Borg on clay back then was at least akin to Nadal these last years. The Angelic Assassin most assuredly would have won more French Opens--of that I have little doubt. I also believe, sans injury, Novak will win more--likely another three to five before all is said and done.

 

[Federberg]

If Novak retired today I'd probably rate Agassi higher, but given that he's in his prime and will almost certainly get more Slam trophies, he deserves to be higher.

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

In my opinion the Olympics singles is a 'nice to have', I'm not sure that it pads ones resume that much. And before anyone get's on their low donkey I would say the same whether Federer had won it or not. We've had this discussion before... I feel the same way about DC (even more so).

Even then.. you have to give the edge to Agassi for now. For slam count, for tournament wins and longevity. There's no question in my mind that when all is said and done, Novak will leave Andre far behind, barring a catastrophe of course

I would say it was "nice to have" in the 90's and before, but now it's a significant title. Why? It's simple really. Look at how much players want it, the importance the attribute to it, what it means to them to win it, etc... When players prioritize the Olympics over any non-major tournament, that's all the endorsement the Olympics need.

I agree that's the one thing going for the Olympics. Unfortunately because of the selection process, it's a bit too random to be a genuine achievement/ contest. I certainly applaud the players patriotism and Olympic spirit. But if golf got into the Olympics and players craved the gold medal, does that mean it's suddenly comparable to the Masters? I'm not sure..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Agassi should be rated higher even now. Not only does he have one more GS, he also has a career golden slam. If Novak gets RG, then we can talk, but until then Agassi has a greater record.

In my opinion the Olympics singles is a 'nice to have', I'm not sure that it pads ones resume that much. And before anyone get's on their low donkey I would say the same whether Federer had won it or not. We've had this discussion before... I feel the same way about DC (even more so).

Even then.. you have to give the edge to Agassi for now. For slam count, for tournament wins and longevity. There's no question in my mind that when all is said and done, Novak will leave Andre far behind, barring a catastrophe of course

I would say it was "nice to have" in the 90's and before, but now it's a significant title. Why? It's simple really. Look at how much players want it, the importance the attribute to it, what it means to them to win it, etc... When players prioritize the Olympics over any non-major tournament, that's all the endorsement the Olympics need.

I agree that's the one thing going for the Olympics. Unfortunately because of the selection process, it's a bit too random to be a genuine achievement/ contest. I certainly applaud the players patriotism and Olympic spirit. But if golf got into the Olympics and players craved the gold medal, does that mean it's suddenly comparable to the Masters? I'm not sure..

The Olympics in tennis is not comparable to Masters events...It's more prestigious.

 

[Federberg]

^ Sorry if I wasn't clear BS I meant the Masters in golf.. which is a major

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Sorry if I wasn't clear BS I meant the Masters in golf.. which is a major

Oh I knew you meant the Masters in golf, but, little as I know about that sport, I thought they're the equivalent of Masters in tennis. My bad :cover

 

[mrzz]

Clearly Borg's numbers are skewed by his shortened career. Connors' numbers are surprisingly good, but we need to remember that in a lot of years he (and Borg) only played two or three Slams, which is easier to make it far in every appearance.

One question: Nadal also did not play in a lot of slams... did you apply the same criterium for him? I know this is a tricky point for a lot of reasons, but... just to know.

 

[El Dude]

Clearly Borg's numbers are skewed by his shortened career. Connors' numbers are surprisingly good, but we need to remember that in a lot of years he (and Borg) only played two or three Slams, which is easier to make it far in every appearance.

One question: Nadal also did not play in a lot of slams... did you apply the same criterium for him? I know this is a tricky point for a lot of reasons, but... just to know.

I considered any year in which a player played in at least half of the Slams (or two) as adequate to qualify for making it to the QF of "every" Slam of that year. For Rafa, only 2006 was a year in which he missed a Slam (the AO) and make it to the QF or later at the other three. The six years that Borg made it to the QF or later at "every" Slam were 1975-76 and 1977-81, and in all of those years he missed the AO, which many players skipped during the 70s and into the 80s, and Borg only played in once (1974).

 

[mrzz]

Clearly Borg's numbers are skewed by his shortened career. Connors' numbers are surprisingly good, but we need to remember that in a lot of years he (and Borg) only played two or three Slams, which is easier to make it far in every appearance.

One question: Nadal also did not play in a lot of slams... did you apply the same criterium for him? I know this is a tricky point for a lot of reasons, but... just to know.

I considered any year in which a player played in at least half of the Slams (or two) as adequate to qualify for making it to the QF of "every" Slam of that year. For Rafa, only 2006 was a year in which he missed a Slam (the AO) and make it to the QF or later at the other three. The six years that Borg made it to the QF or later at "every" Slam were 1975-76 and 1977-81, and in all of those years he missed the AO, which many players skipped during the 70s and into the 80s, and Borg only played in once (1974).

I see... but for the percentages, do you include non-played slams on it?