Countdown to the unbeatable records

i notice that after yesterday Federer is only 104 match victories short of Jimmy Connors ridiculous match wins record of 1256. By the time Wimbledon starts that might be down to double figures.

A bit farther away is his titles record of 109, with possible victory today enabling Federer to get to 98. How cool would it be if Wimbledon could be #100?

I think in both cases the tape is still a daunting distance away but what was once fanciful is now feasible. Considering how many questionable tournaments make up Connors totals this really would be mind blowing.

I agree; what was fanciful looks feasible, both in terms of tournament and match wins.

Next week Fed overtakes Connors’s weeks in the top 10 ranking, although I think Connors’s period near the top pre-dates the ranking system.

I don;t think that's feasible. That another 2 years of great success. Or 4 years of average success. Can't see it.

But above I don;t think this record is of any importance as I think he has already won it.

6 year #1 is much more important I think.

He can always do 10 x ATP 250 next year in exotic places he never played and go to 110 wins.

I don’t care about Connors’ records....if they happen, nice...

Main thing is he wins Wimbledon and ends year as number one.

That would be totally crazy...as the first time he did it was in 2004!!!

Yes, there are clearly bigger records but I was interested in these particular ones because they are about incredible longevity and sustained effectiveness. So much so that Connors records are really a bit dodgy what with the tiny field events he clocked up.

Unlike Tenez I think the match wins is really on. It’s not two great seasons, it’s two reasonable ones.

And now it’s 103/11

I am like Tenez, two years of great success or four decent years. Two great years are too much to ask at his age, and four average years is not something he will be interested in.

But I also do not care for these records. The thing that matters is slams slams and slams. Then long nothing and then #1 - total weeks and ye #1s.

I think Fed will beat the Connors record if he plays another year after this one - and would have already done so by a mile if there were Masters events on grass.

It's insane what he's doing. 

His weeks n1 record and consecutive wn1 record will likely not be beaten in next 50 years or even longer.

Some of his records are immortal.

If Fed plays as long as Connors did, he should bypass the num of match wins and also the titles records. Connors played 24 years on tour, this is Fed's 20th.  But I doubt Fed will play till 40 years of age.

Since 2013, when many were writing him off as visibly ageing &c &c, Fed has won 21 tournaments including 3 Slams and 6 Masters, appeared in 3 other slam finals and 2 tour finals, and regained #1.  That is comparable to the entire achievements of Murray and Wawrinka - everybody agrees how extraordinary that is.  

More recently, and if you exclude the aberration of 2016 he's been good for >50 match wins and >5 tournament wins a year (the match wins have fallen steadily from 70's-60's-50's but the tournament wins have held up well).  He's on 21 match wins in 2018 (it was 20 at the same stage in 2017).  If he can close to match what he did last year and put in two more solid if not necessarily spectacular years after that, another 103 match wins and 11 titles is possible.

We all know, however, that his back can intervene at any time as well as all the other exigencies of life on tour for a 37+ yr old.

All feasible.

Some of these records, Connors match wins and tournament wins, Margaret Court '24' slams etc, are bloody annoying.

They're in the record books but you know they're crap and only serve to detract from the truly great records of the people in second place.

BTW, on an age by age comparison I believe Rafa is now ahead on the total tournaments won and level on the slams. 

17 slams each at age 32

79 total wins RN to 77 for RF

I think it's neck and neck for total matches won by age 32

Of course Federer had an awful 2013 (when he turned 32) and then picked up the pace again in 2014. 

Rafa could yet finish ahead of Federer on these 'unbeatable' metrics if he can sustain the pace. It seems unlikely but then who woulda thought he'd still be winning slams at this age, and, if anything, he looks more robust than in previous years.

As someone said here...Nadal is just a claycourter...

It’s criminal he was allowed to win Wimbledon etc with that dull UE inducing bicep machine.

It is what it is, but let’s not get carried away, shall we?

Emancipator wrote:BTW, on an age by age comparison I believe Rafa is now ahead on the total tournaments won and level on the slams. 

17 slams each at age 32

79 total wins RN to 77 for RF

I think it's neck and neck for total matches won by age 32

Of course Federer had an awful 2013 (when he turned 32) and then picked up the pace again in 2014. 

Rafa could yet finish ahead of Federer on these 'unbeatable' metrics if he can sustain the pace. It seems unlikely but then who woulda thought he'd still be winning slams at this age, and, if anything, he looks more robust than in previous years.

If Rafa is going to finish ahead on the 'overall' figures, I think he's going to have to focus far more heavily on clay tournaments.  His history thus far suggests that when he has a sustained run of good form away from clay, namely finals and wins, he can pay for it physically afterwards - the most obvious examples are the second half of 2009 and 2015-2016, perhaps even late 2017 to early 2018.  I think winning away from clay requires an increasing price as he gets older.  

However, if he wants to challenge Fed on the overall slam count he probably can't rely on being able to win the next three RG's without a slam on HC - USO 2018 may be pivotal in that race, but not, I suspect, if Fed wins Wimbledon this year (big if I think).

another ausopen for nadal, just that

naxroy wrote:another ausopen for nadal, just that

Are you saying that is likely, or that it is desirable because it would be x2 career slam?

I think his chances at the USO are better than at the AO, but he obviously came close in 2017 and I suppose you could say that only Fed has had the beating of him on HC when he's in shape/form over the last two years so that relying on 37-yr-old Fed to do a job in 2019 feels somewhat over-confident.

not likely, but my desire, as it would be one of those hard to beat records for federer

Emancipator wrote:Rafa could yet finish ahead of Federer on these 'unbeatable' metrics if he can sustain the pace.

If Rafa can keep up his standard of play until he is 37-38, Connors's records will be the least of our worries.

I doubt he will be able to though.  I think maybe 1-2 more years tops.  My feeling is that he and Fed are about equally far from their respective decline.  As well as Rafa has been doing, he has slowed down.  His more aggressive backhand and play is a virtue dictated by necessity - I do not think he can maintain the intensity as much as he used to when younger.  And I think that will start hurting him more and more.

We shall see.  Maybe he will sweep RG/W/USO this year, and I will be much closer to panic mode in three months than I am now.

naxroy wrote:not likely, but my desire, as it would be one of those hard to beat records for federer

Well since Federer has retired from clay it would be impossible.

Anyway, back to my focus and hopefully today he'll be only 102 behind.

barrystar wrote:

Emancipator wrote:BTW, on an age by age comparison I believe Rafa is now ahead on the total tournaments won and level on the slams. 

17 slams each at age 32

79 total wins RN to 77 for RF

I think it's neck and neck for total matches won by age 32

Of course Federer had an awful 2013 (when he turned 32) and then picked up the pace again in 2014. 

Rafa could yet finish ahead of Federer on these 'unbeatable' metrics if he can sustain the pace. It seems unlikely but then who woulda thought he'd still be winning slams at this age, and, if anything, he looks more robust than in previous years.

If Rafa is going to finish ahead on the 'overall' figures, I think he's going to have to focus far more heavily on clay tournaments.  His history thus far suggests that when he has a sustained run of good form away from clay, namely finals and wins, he can pay for it physically afterwards - the most obvious examples are the second half of 2009 and 2015-2016, perhaps even late 2017 to early 2018.  I think winning away from clay requires an increasing price as he gets older.  

However, if he wants to challenge Fed on the overall slam count he probably can't rely on being able to win the next three RG's without a slam on HC - USO 2018 may be pivotal in that race, but not, I suspect, if Fed wins Wimbledon this year (big if I think).

Always felt Nadal should give up the ghost on Grass. Too many early losses. Agree he should focus on Clay and the US Swing.

legendkillar wrote:Always felt Nadal should give up the ghost on Grass. Too many early losses. Agree he should focus on Clay and the US Swing.

I think Nadal was pretty close of winning last year. Had they not watered the courts the second week, Wimbledon with bigger balls and less grass would have been a better chance than teh FO even.

Yes the 1st week is usually tricky but last year it was so hot and dry, with even shorter grass that it was perfect for Nadal.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Always felt Nadal should give up the ghost on Grass. Too many early losses. Agree he should focus on Clay and the US Swing.

I think Nadal was pretty close of winning last year. Had they not watered the courts the second week, Wimbledon with bigger balls and less grass would have been a better chance than teh FO even.

Yes the 1st week is usually tricky but last year it was so hot and dry, with even shorter grass that it was perfect for Nadal.

Even his results in warm events on grass haven't been great. Halle wasn't it with early exits. I don't see the point of him chasing results he won't improve on. 

Is he really going to be a contender for Wimbledon? I don't see it. The field know a decent go for broke approach against him early on will win them the match.

His results in Wimbledon woudl have been worse had they been over bo3. This is why his pre-wimby events are not that great.

If the conds are good for him (superdry),then his chances will be excellent.

Bigger balls make the bounce higher, the ball slow down quicker. With a 8mm grass nstead of 9mm and dry conds coudl be great for him. Last year he had one of (if not) his best first week at Wimbeldon.

barrystar wrote:

Emancipator wrote:BTW, on an age by age comparison I believe Rafa is now ahead on the total tournaments won and level on the slams. 

17 slams each at age 32

79 total wins RN to 77 for RF

I think it's neck and neck for total matches won by age 32

Of course Federer had an awful 2013 (when he turned 32) and then picked up the pace again in 2014. 

Rafa could yet finish ahead of Federer on these 'unbeatable' metrics if he can sustain the pace. It seems unlikely but then who woulda thought he'd still be winning slams at this age, and, if anything, he looks more robust than in previous years.

If Rafa is going to finish ahead on the 'overall' figures, I think he's going to have to focus far more heavily on clay tournaments.  His history thus far suggests that when he has a sustained run of good form away from clay, namely finals and wins, he can pay for it physically afterwards - the most obvious examples are the second half of 2009 and 2015-2016, perhaps even late 2017 to early 2018.  I think winning away from clay requires an increasing price as he gets older.  

However, if he wants to challenge Fed on the overall slam count he probably can't rely on being able to win the next three RG's without a slam on HC - USO 2018 may be pivotal in that race, but not, I suspect, if Fed wins Wimbledon this year (big if I think).

I think it's unlikely but he's very good at making us look silly.

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:Rafa could yet finish ahead of Federer on these 'unbeatable' metrics if he can sustain the pace.

If Rafa can keep up his standard of play until he is 37-38, Connors's records will be the least of our worries.

If he can make it to 35 at this pace he will be close. Remember Federer won nothing in 2013 the year he turned 32 so Rafa is playing with house money for the rest of this year.

Federer also then missed out almost completely on 2016. 

Federer also faced much steeper competition than Rafa will have to contend with in the equivalent years.

The "house money" comparator point is a good one .

That said, Nadal has done nothing of any note on HC since the Shanghai final last year because he has faced similar problems to those which plagued him at different times on HC when he was younger.

In relation to the competition faced by Nadal in the future, I accept that the only person between Nadal and 3 big HC tournament wins last year was Fed himself (AO, Miami, Shanghai).  However, I think it's a race vs. time for Nadal to get fit again sooner - I think that the threat posed to him on HC by the likes of Cilic and del Boy is increasing - and then surely one of the new gang will step up....?

Emancipator wrote:Federer also faced much steeper competition than Rafa will have to contend with in the equivalent years.

Wrong. Rafa has that unique game which makes him difficult to play...but I expect the likes of Nishi, Pouille, Zverev and even Thiem to get much better than Nadal soon.

Dear god...  the delusion.  The very idea Nadal - the ultimate one trick pony - is going to be able to compete until 37 lmao.

Tenez wrote:but I expect the likes of Nishi, Pouille, Zverev and even Thiem to get much better than Nadal soon.

That is all very well, but you have been expecting the same the last 10 years or so.

Still, I agree that I do not see him winning until 35, let alone 37-38.

Emancipator wrote:I think it's unlikely but he's very good at making us look silly.

Is he, though?

I think it is not clear whether he over-performed or under-preformed relative to what people expected from him this time 10 years ago.  After he beat Fed at W08 and again AO09, I seem to remember that the thinking was that he finally took over and would dominate from then on.  There were questions whether Fed would even reach 14, given that Rafa was dominating him everywhere.

Yet Rafa never managed to dominate.  He underperformed the rest of 2009 and in 2010, and then was unable to contain rising Djokovic.  He came back strong again in 2013 and again it seemed for a while like he might overtake all the records, but it was again a short-lived spurt.

He is doing well again now, but will it last?

It is not clear to me whether it is more accurate to see Rafa as defying the odds by first taking over in 08/09, then coming back strong in 2013, and now again, or whether it is more a case of him ultimately failing to live up to the highest expectations by not being able to build on his 08/09 and 2013.

Emancipator wrote:If he can make it to 35 at this pace he will be close.

Yes, 35 I think is about as far as he can hope to do well.  If he can, then yes, it will be close.  He has always been the strongest contender to overtake Fed, and he still is.

That said, I do think his game makes it harder to last into mid 30s.  Here is the list of players 35 years or older who are in top 100 now.  You can see that the list is biased towards attacking players - much more so than the top 100 itself.  I would say Ferrer and Lorenzi are the only two less aggressive players here.  And Ferrer, while in top 100 - is way below how he used to perform in his prime.  So I think it will be harder for Rafa to stick around until 35+ than it is for Fed.

1.  Federer - 36
37. F. Lopez - 36
40. Ferrer - 36
46. Muller - 35
66. Benneteau - 36
70. Garcia-Lopez - 35
93. Lorenzi - 36
94. Youzhny - 35

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:I think it's unlikely but he's very good at making us look silly.

Is he, though?

I think it is not clear whether he over-performed or under-preformed relative to what people expected from him this time 10 years ago.  After he beat Fed at W08 and again AO09, I seem to remember that the thinking was that he finally took over and would dominate from then on.  There were questions whether Fed would even reach 14, given that Rafa was dominating him everywhere.

Yet Rafa never managed to dominate.  He underperformed the rest of 2009 and in 2010, and then was unable to contain rising Djokovic.  He came back strong again in 2013 and again it seemed for a while like he might overtake all the records, but it was again a short-lived spurt.

He is doing well again now, but will it last?

It is not clear to me whether it is more accurate to see Rafa as defying the odds by first taking over in 08/09, then coming back strong in 2013, and now again, or whether it is more a case of him ultimately failing to live up to the highest expectations by not being able to build on his 08/09 and 2013.

I think when Nadal first emerged, circa 2006, the prevailing consensus was that he wouldn't last beyond his late twenties, and many felt that he would probably burn out around 26-27, ala Hewitt, Kuerten, and numerous others. Remember the oft quoted 'he's writing cheques his body can't cash' (paraphrased). Most probably saw him as a precocious physically mature player who would burn bright but for a short period. In contrast to Federer who looked to have the game and economy of style that favours longevity.

Nadal seemed plagued by knee problems. After the problems of 2009, many thought that was probably the beginning of the end (I think you've forgotten that he stormed back to win 3 slams in 2010, and only a superhuman effort from Djokovic prevented him from dominating 2011); 2012 was surely the end? and then the barren spell of mid 2014-2017 was most definitely the end of the road, and yet, here he is in 2018, looking fit and winning slams. Perhaps it was wishful thinking from some Federer fans that Rafa would not come back from those setbacks. 

Did anyone think, with his style of play, that he would be winning slams 13 years after his first? That he would be sitting on 17 slams and 80 tour titles? I suspect not. So, in answer to the question, I think he has exceeded expectations in terms of achievements and longevity. 

Like I said, I think it's unlikely that he surpasses Federer on these counts, but it's not inconceivable. I said a few years ago, when all is said and done, Rafa's record will be every bit or at least almost, as formidable as Federer's - he's nearly there.

summerblues wrote:

Emancipator wrote:If he can make it to 35 at this pace he will be close.

Yes, 35 I think is about as far as he can hope to do well.  If he can, then yes, it will be close.  He has always been the strongest contender to overtake Fed, and he still is.

That said, I do think his game makes it harder to last into mid 30s.  Here is the list of players 35 years or older who are in top 100 now.  You can see that the list is biased towards attacking players - much more so than the top 100 itself.  I would say Ferrer and Lorenzi are the only two less aggressive players here.  And Ferrer, while in top 100 - is way below how he used to perform in his prime.  So I think it will be harder for Rafa to stick around until 35+ than it is for Fed.

1.  Federer - 36
37. F. Lopez - 36
40. Ferrer - 36
46. Muller - 35
66. Benneteau - 36
70. Garcia-Lopez - 35
93. Lorenzi - 36
94. Youzhny - 35

I don't expect him to be competitive beyond 35-6 but that could be enough depending on how much Federer has left. 3-4 seasons to make up the deficit. I suspect Federer is also keenly aware of the danger and is rationing his schedule so smartly to eke out the competitive mileage. 

Barry makes a strong argument against Nadal closing the gap - he has had very little success outside of clay in the last few years. That will probably decide the outcome because like Barry I think Rafa needs at least one more slam outside of RG to really make a challenge for the overall slam count. 

If Federer fails to win W this year and Rafa retains the USO then it's really on.

@emancipator - I so thoroughly agree with your last two posts that I could have written the same thing myself (although maybe not as elegantly...).

The one nuance I'd add, banging a drum of mine, is to re-emphasise the extent to which Nadal has been streaky, especially away from the clay, going in great blazes of carrying all before him away from clay but with lulls between them: mid 2008-2009, mid 2010-early 2012 (only stopped by Djoko), 2013, 2017 (only stopped by Fed).  What makes me question his ability to keep this up is that the lulls seem to be caused by injury/discomfort, and often to the same part of the body, the knee.  I sometimes compare him to massive battery, capable of power surges which drain a lot of juice requiring a rest.

Like you, each time I pose the question, 'surely he can't do that again....' he provides an emphatic answer.  I also agree that the destination of this year's Wimbledon and USO may prove crucial to the final slam tally, or at least confirm the crucial importance to their respective tallies of AO 2017 if Fed comes out of 2018 at least 3 ahead.

australian open 2014 was a huge loss for nadal
it was the begining of his worst period (late 2014-2016)

and in this new rebirth that has been 2017-2018, australian open 2017 was also crucial, as he would be closer to fed now.


so anti nadal fans shall be very happy about australian open in this subject


as for federer, this coming wimbledon is "super" important

naxroy wrote:australian open 2014 was a huge loss for nadal
it was the begining of his worst period (late 2014-2016)

and in this new rebirth that has been 2017-2018, australian open 2017 was also crucial, as he would be closer to fed now.


so anti nadal fans shall be very happy about australian open in this subject


as for federer, this coming wimbledon is "super" important

Yup - I agree with all of that too - Fed has to get out of 2018 at least three ahead to be relatively 'safe', and only at Wimbledon can that be said to be close to being 'on his racquet'.

I remember thinking after the AO 2014 semis that it was the beginning of the end for Fed's status as the top slam winner.

AO and USO have changed status - in the Sampras / Agassi era it was the AO which favoured those whose game suited slower courts better (e.g. Courier as well as Agassi), but in recent years it has been the USO with the AO surface speeding up.

Dare I mention on this hopelessly mistitled Slam record thread it's 102/11?

bogbrush wrote:Dare I mention on this hopelessly mistitled Slam record thread it's 102/11?

Oh for sure - I think that we've reached consensus on the heading for the time being and are meandering around on other subjects - mention "records" and "Federer" in the same sentence or paragraph and it's pretty obvious where that may lead, however skillfully you handle your collie....

....like moths to a flame (war) 

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:but I expect the likes of Nishi, Pouille, Zverev and even Thiem to get much better than Nadal soon.

That is all very well, but you have been expecting the same the last 10 years or so.

Still, I agree that I do not see him winning until 35, let alone 37-38.

Yes but I have (and I am sure you did too) learnt a lot about tennis in the last 10 years.
We learnt that players don;t peak at 27. That most players keep improving past that age. That the lack of change in technology makes it harder for the youngsters to pierce through. That Nadal's knees are perfectly fine. That Djokovic and Murray who got the better of Nadal on clay have been injured. That Nishi is actually made of China while Thiem is not a very smart guy. That the USO is as good as clay nowadays...and I am sure we learnt many more things.

We might still learn a lot more in the next 10 years but to me Nadal (and possibly Federer though to a lesser extent) would not have had any success in the last 2 years if Djokovic had not been injured. Nadal is making the most of djoko decline....including winning that last FO

Do you think Federer would have if Djok had not been injured?

Djokovic's decline is not just due to injury though, he lost his head. Federer and Nadal went through bad injury periods as well, but kept up a champion's mentality. So they deserve the success they're getting.

luvsports! wrote:Do you think Federer would have if Djok had not been injured?

Djokovic is the only one who stopped federer from having more Wimbledons and USO since he adopted the larger frame. Essentially thanks to playing a tired Fed (end of tournaments). I am pretty sure for instance that a fit Djoko would not have lost v Fed in AO18 and possibly 17...in the final. But in the first round, I'd always fancy this Fed than Djoko.

Federer threw at least one of the wimb finals v djok away.  But djok wasnt able to stop federer every time.  Djok's style of play leads to injuries.  That's the game.


Asking "if" a player would stop a player when they weren't even competing is rather silly.

What IF djok didnt even make it to the final.  You seem to be assuming he would definitely have met federer.

I tend to feel Djoko’s problems have probably helped Fed more than Nadal. We know Rafa has always tended to have the edge over Novak at RG and Novak was the barrier to Fed winning Wimbledon and Oz in 2014-15. 

That said, I agree with Daniel. Novak’s ultra-intense style was always likely to lead to a bit of a loss of focus and/or injuries at some point. No real point speculating on what might have been.

barrystar wrote:@emancipator - I so thoroughly agree with your last two posts that I could have written the same thing myself (although maybe not as elegantly...).

[…]

Like you, each time I pose the question, 'surely he can't do that again....' he provides an emphatic answer.

I suppose it all depends on whether one is an optimist or a pessimist.  We all have seen the same Rafa's up and downs over the years, we just process them differently.

You first thought he was just a clay courter, then that Novak overtook him, then that he was done in 2016, and yet he is here only 3 slams behind Fed's total.

I thought he had nothing standing in his way after AO 2009, had many productive years ahead of him in 2013 with Fed looking done, and yet he is here still 3 slams behind Fed.

Emancipator wrote:Did anyone think, with his style of play, that he would be winning slams 13 years after his first? That he would be sitting on 17 slams and 80 tour titles? I suspect not. So, in answer to the question, I think he has exceeded expectations in terms of achievements and longevity.

Did everyone think that?  I gather not.  But not anyone?  I disagree.  I remember a comment by Nameless from many years ago (must have been 2009/2010) to the effect that Delpo was a 1D player, but we might need him because nobody else would stop Rafa from winning 20 slams.  That was a reasonably common thought (fear?) then.  There was much more talk about Rafa having a chance for GOAThood back then than now - and it was not all based on H2H fever dreams.

If you told me in 2009 that one of Fed or Rafa would reach 20 slams, I think I would have picked Rafa back then - simply because he was 5 years younger.  Same now, while I expect he will likely fail to catch Fed, I would think if one of them were to reach 25 slams, it would be Rafa.  Again, because he is 5 years younger.

Tenez wrote:We might still learn a lot more in the next 10 years

Let's just hope that we will not learn in the next three years that Rafa can win another 8 slams.

is nameless around? under what nick?

naxroy wrote:is nameless around? under what nick?

I don't think he is.  He had joined one of the 606 spin-off forums but that forum later fell apart (due to technical reasons - they programmed their forum website from scratch but then something went wrong with it and it died).  I do not know if/where he may have posted after that.