- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,706
- Reactions
- 5,041
- Points
- 113
One way to get a rough estimate of a great player's broad prime years is to look at the span in which they won Slams. Now his is by no means very accurate in determining how good a player was in a given year; for instance, Rod Laver stopped winning Slams in 1969, but remained arguably the best player in tennis for another year or two, and a top player for half a decade or more. The problem is that he stopped playing in many Slams due to political and personal reasons, and focused his time on other tournaments.
Or we can look at Roger Federer, who hasn't won a Slam since 2012 but finished #2 and #3 in 2014-15, clearly still a top player. Or Ivan Lendl, who didn't win his first Slam until 1984 but was one of the best players for several years before that. There are other instances of this.
But Slam spans gives us something to chew on, and I'm more interested in it in terms of precedents and trends: How long of a period do great players tend to win their Slams within? What's the typical window?
For this I looked first at the Open Era, although with several players stretched further back before the Open Era. The Open Era 6+ Slam winners, ranked by order of "Slam Title Span":
20 Ken Rosewall (1953-72)
13 Pete Sampras (1990-02)
12 Boris Becker (1985-86)
12 Andre Agassi (1992-03)
10 Rod Laver (1960-69)
10 Jimmy Connors (1974-83)
10 Roger Federer (2003-12)
10 Rafael Nadal (2005-14)
9 John Newcombe (1967-75)
9 Novak Djokovic (2008-16)
8 Bjorn Borg (1974-81)
7 Ivan Lendl (1984-90)
7 Mats Wilander (1982-88)
7 Stefan Edberg (1985-91)
6 John McEnroe (1979-84)
Some interesting things to note. First of all, how about that Ken Rosewall - what amazing longevity. He won his first Slams at age 18, his last at 37. It is also interesting that his span range is twice that of his better rival, which I pointed out in the generation series, I believe. Secondly, what a short flash McEnroe was - only six years. Finally, of these players only one of them never had a multi-Slam year: Stefan Edberg. Every other 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era had at least one year in which they won multiple Slams.
OK, let's look beyond the Open Era. As above, this includes players with at least 5 Slam titles:
16 Bill Tilden (1920-35)
14 Pancho Gonzales (1948-61)
11 William Larned (1901-11)
11 Henri Cochet (1926-36)
11 Bobby Riggs (1939-49)
10 Frank Sedgman (1949-58)
9 William Renshaw (1881-89)
9 Fred Perry (1933-41)
9 Ellsworth Vines (1931-39)
8 Tony Wilding (1906-13)
7 Richard Sears (1881-87)
7 Tony Trabert (1953-59)
7 Roy Emerson (1961-67)
6 Don Budge (1937-42)
5 Laurence Doherty (1902-06)
5 Rene Lacoste (1925-29)
5 Jack Crawford (1931-35)
So the range is similar to the Open Era. We can look at the pure numbers:
20 yrs: 1 player
16 yrs: 1 player
14 yrs: 1 player
13 yrs: 1 player
12 yrs: 2 players
11 yrs: 3 players
10 yrs: 5 players
9 yrs: 5 players
8 yrs: 2 players
7 yrs: 6 players
6 yrs: 2 players
5 yrs: 3 players
Now what I find interesting there, is that you have only one player for years 13 and higher, and then it builds up to a larger number in the 9-10 range, a dip at 8 years, and then a lot at 7 again, and then a smaller number at 5-6 years. So the largest group seems to be in the 7-10 year range.
Let's look at our three active greats. Roger and Rafa are stuck at 10 years, and Novak is at 9 years. If Roger wins a Slam in 2017, all of a sudden his range jumps to 15 years, more than any player other than Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. Put in that light, it seems highly unlikely that he'll accomplish the feat...but if anyone can do it, Roger can. Rafa would jump to 13, which would tie him with Sampras, and Novak would extend his to 10 - which seems very likely.
But I think the key here is the rarity over 12 years. Roger's 12th year would have been 2014; Rafa's would have been 2016, and Novak's will be 2019. Something to keep in mind.
And Andy Murray? He won his first in 2012, so is at 5.
Or we can look at Roger Federer, who hasn't won a Slam since 2012 but finished #2 and #3 in 2014-15, clearly still a top player. Or Ivan Lendl, who didn't win his first Slam until 1984 but was one of the best players for several years before that. There are other instances of this.
But Slam spans gives us something to chew on, and I'm more interested in it in terms of precedents and trends: How long of a period do great players tend to win their Slams within? What's the typical window?
For this I looked first at the Open Era, although with several players stretched further back before the Open Era. The Open Era 6+ Slam winners, ranked by order of "Slam Title Span":
20 Ken Rosewall (1953-72)
13 Pete Sampras (1990-02)
12 Boris Becker (1985-86)
12 Andre Agassi (1992-03)
10 Rod Laver (1960-69)
10 Jimmy Connors (1974-83)
10 Roger Federer (2003-12)
10 Rafael Nadal (2005-14)
9 John Newcombe (1967-75)
9 Novak Djokovic (2008-16)
8 Bjorn Borg (1974-81)
7 Ivan Lendl (1984-90)
7 Mats Wilander (1982-88)
7 Stefan Edberg (1985-91)
6 John McEnroe (1979-84)
Some interesting things to note. First of all, how about that Ken Rosewall - what amazing longevity. He won his first Slams at age 18, his last at 37. It is also interesting that his span range is twice that of his better rival, which I pointed out in the generation series, I believe. Secondly, what a short flash McEnroe was - only six years. Finally, of these players only one of them never had a multi-Slam year: Stefan Edberg. Every other 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era had at least one year in which they won multiple Slams.
OK, let's look beyond the Open Era. As above, this includes players with at least 5 Slam titles:
16 Bill Tilden (1920-35)
14 Pancho Gonzales (1948-61)
11 William Larned (1901-11)
11 Henri Cochet (1926-36)
11 Bobby Riggs (1939-49)
10 Frank Sedgman (1949-58)
9 William Renshaw (1881-89)
9 Fred Perry (1933-41)
9 Ellsworth Vines (1931-39)
8 Tony Wilding (1906-13)
7 Richard Sears (1881-87)
7 Tony Trabert (1953-59)
7 Roy Emerson (1961-67)
6 Don Budge (1937-42)
5 Laurence Doherty (1902-06)
5 Rene Lacoste (1925-29)
5 Jack Crawford (1931-35)
So the range is similar to the Open Era. We can look at the pure numbers:
20 yrs: 1 player
16 yrs: 1 player
14 yrs: 1 player
13 yrs: 1 player
12 yrs: 2 players
11 yrs: 3 players
10 yrs: 5 players
9 yrs: 5 players
8 yrs: 2 players
7 yrs: 6 players
6 yrs: 2 players
5 yrs: 3 players
Now what I find interesting there, is that you have only one player for years 13 and higher, and then it builds up to a larger number in the 9-10 range, a dip at 8 years, and then a lot at 7 again, and then a smaller number at 5-6 years. So the largest group seems to be in the 7-10 year range.
Let's look at our three active greats. Roger and Rafa are stuck at 10 years, and Novak is at 9 years. If Roger wins a Slam in 2017, all of a sudden his range jumps to 15 years, more than any player other than Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall. Put in that light, it seems highly unlikely that he'll accomplish the feat...but if anyone can do it, Roger can. Rafa would jump to 13, which would tie him with Sampras, and Novak would extend his to 10 - which seems very likely.
But I think the key here is the rarity over 12 years. Roger's 12th year would have been 2014; Rafa's would have been 2016, and Novak's will be 2019. Something to keep in mind.
And Andy Murray? He won his first in 2012, so is at 5.
