Sunday, July 8, 2012

Federer Claims Seventh Wimbledon Crown with a Virtuoso Performance

Andy Murray, the fourth ranked tennis player in the world, played the best that he has ever played in a Grand Slam final--and he took just one set from Roger Federer, who claimed his 17th Grand Slam singles title (extending his own record) and seventh Wimbledon crown. Federer's virtuoso performance against Murray provided a classic demonstration of the difference--mentally, physically and emotionally--between an all-time great player and a very, very good player. As ESPN's Darren Cahill aptly put it, Murray did not do anything wrong but Federer just took the match away from him.

Federer's triumph enabled him to equal two modern era records held by Pete Sampras: most Wimbledon singles titles and most weeks as the number one ranked player (286). Federer ended his two year drought without a Grand Slam title, winning his first major since the 2010 Australian Open; prior to this year's Wimbledon, Federer had made it to just one final in his previous nine Grand Slam appearances after advancing to the previous eight finals and winning four of those. During Federer's struggles--by his high standards--it seemed reasonable to wonder if he would ever win another Grand Slam title, just as now it seems reasonable to wonder how many more Grand Slam titles Federer might be able to win despite his relatively advanced age (he turns 31 next month). Sampras had eight winless Grand Slam appearances after winning his 13th Grand Slam title--tying the longest such drought of his career--and he retired at 31 after winning the U.S. Open to claim his 14th major title but Federer believes that he can keep playing at a high level for the foreseeable future. It is too soon to say if this was the last great singular moment of Federer's career or the beginning of some kind of revival.

For several years, it has been popular to acclaim Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time or at least the greatest tennis player of the Open Era; the first claim is virtually impossible to logically prove considering the vast differences (equipment, rules, surfaces, etc.) between the various tennis eras, while the second claim is at the least very debatable considering the simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open dominance achieved by Bjorn Borg, not to mention Rafael Nadal's head to head mastery of Federer and the fact that Nadal won more Grand Slams by age 25 than anyone in tennis history other than Borg.

While the greatest of all-time/greatest of the Open Era questions are more complex than most people seem to be willing to acknowledge, on the occasion of Federer's most recent Wimbledon triumph it makes sense to compare Federer's stellar career at tennis' most prestigious Grand Slam with the numbers posted by Borg and Sampras, the two other most distinguished Wimbledon champions of the Open Era:

Federer has played at Wimbledon 14 times, amassing seven titles plus one other finals appearance. He has lost in the first round three times and has a 66-7 match record (.904).

Sampras also played at Wimbledon 14 times, winning seven titles in seven finals appearances. He lost in the first round twice and he posted a 63-7 match record (.900).

Borg played at Wimbledon nine times, winning five titles in six finals appearances. He never lost earlier than the third round and he posted a 51-4 match record (.927).

Federer and Sampras share the modern era record for most Wimbledon titles but Borg still holds (or, in one instance, shares) several other Wimbledon records:
  1. Career match winning percentage (.927)
  2. 41 consecutive match wins (1976-81)
  3. Only player to win Wimbledon without losing a set (1976)
  4. 24 consecutive sets won (1976-77)
  5. Five consecutive championships won (1976-80; Borg shares this record with Federer, who won five in a row from 2003-07)
However, Borg's most impressive Wimbledon record--and one of the reasons that I still consider him to be the greatest player of the Open Era--is that for three years in a row (1978-80) he captured the "Channel Slam," triumphing first on the slow clay at Roland Garros and then prevailing on the fast grass at Wimbledon. When Borg retired, he was the four-time reigning French Open champion and he held the Open Era record for both Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six). Sampras and Federer broke Borg's Wimbledon record and Nadal broke Borg's French Open record but no other player has simultaneously ruled both surfaces the way that Borg did.

Federer's mastery is deservedly lauded but the fact that even a player as gifted, durable and motivated as he is cannot match the multi-surface dominance that Borg accomplished indicates just how much respect and praise that Borg deserves as well.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is just the second article penned by you that I'm reading sir. I consider it a privilege to be going through such an insightful breakdown of what the true history of the sport is . I was carried away with the false illusion that the media sycophants had implanted in my mind about the tennis legends . I had the impression that Federer and Nadal were head and shoulders above all other tennis greats. I'd obviously heard about the other greats but little did I know about them save the career stats. I'm a big fan of Rafael Nadal and in a way I must concede I've been biased at times regarding my opinion about the Federer nadal rivalry (if at all a rivalry) and that's purely because of the frustration caused by an ocean of federer fans surrounding me (they've dragged me in the well ). But I'm glad to know there are people like you who can see what the truth is and share it with such high degree of proficiency.

Nikhil

Anonymous said...

I was always confident that Nadal is the best player of the current golden (correct me if it ain't golden) era of men's tennis. He leads Federer , murray and Djokovic in their head to heads respectively . The sample spaces are quite large to reach certain conclusions. But I wasn't sure if Nadal was the greatest ever which is certainly debatable. The only other player that came to my mind was Borg. After reading your statistics and views of the sport all I can do is marvel at how great Borg's achievements are. In a way , I feel sad to concede that he's better than Rafa. I curse myself for being non existent during his days (I'm 21). It would be my dream to see a nadal vs borg encounter in Roland garros. They played in different eras with different technologies. But after going through your articles I'm convinced that Borg is the best ever. However, I still feel that Rafa could've got the better of him at roland garros had they ever played on an equal footing. But who am I to say that? Regardless , I think Borg has a lot in common with nadal than he has with Federer or Pete Sampras. He was fast like Rafa , had a great court coverage and hit passing shots almost as good as Rafa. Nadal is an animated character and I keep wondering why people don't like that in him. But Borg is something more , along with these nadal like qualities he has the calmness of federer, a great service motion and great skills at the net ( federer's deft touch). For me Borg is like a combination of Federer and Nadal fused into one human body. The ultimate tennis great who's superhuman . He is the best thing that ever happened to tennis as exemplified by his mastery of the slowest and the fastest surfaces to an equal degree.
But I have an interesting question for you Sir . I'm aware that you don't like to speculate but I would still ask this. What if Nadal , Federer, Sampras and Borg happened to be in the same era ? I think Borg's numbers would not be so impressive in that case but it would simultaneously affect these other legends too each in the stead of the rest. I believe that on clay the order would be Nadal , Borg , Federer and Sampras would end up last. On grass it would be Sampras , Borg, Federer followed by Rafa. The only reason I've put pete before borg on grass is because of the strong field he faced in his career. But Borg takes second place on both clay and grass so that makes him the best overall. The undisputable GOAT. What's your take on this Mr David?

Anonymous said...

One final comment sir,
I've often heard that the present era in men's tennis with Federer , Djokovic , murray and Nadal is the golden era. A friend of mine keeps quibbling that the 90's was a better period and I keep dismissing her. She's a fan of Goran Ivanisevic. The field comprised of greats like sampras , agassi , courier , chang , edberg , becker , muster and ivanisevic. It would be an honour if a great historian like you would shed light on this subject. I would love to read and comment on an article by you comparing these eras. Thanking you .

Regards
Nikhil (India)

David Friedman said...

Nikhil:

I am glad that you enjoyed the article and that it has broadened your perspective regarding tennis.

This is a golden era of tennis but whether or not it is THE golden era is a difficult question to answer. In the late 70s/early 80s, three of the top 10 players of all-time--including arguably the greatest player (Borg)--battled each other for Grand Slam titles and the McEnroe-Connors rivalry continued even after Borg retired. Prior to the Open Era (1968) there were other great eras as well but the current Nadal-Federer-Djokovic triad is special.

If Nadal, Federer, Sampras and Borg played in the same era with the same equipment, training methods, etc. I believe that Borg would have won the most Grand Slam titles followed by Federer, Nadal, and Sampras. Sampras would not have won a single clay court match against any of those guys and Federer would not beat Borg or Nadal on clay. Borg was always very competitive in the U.S. Open so in a hypothetical scenario like this one he could win a U.S. Open even against such great competition or perhaps he would be shut out like he was in his own day despite several Finals appearances. If Borg plays in the Australian Open in this hypothetical scenario he would win at least as many titles there as anyone else in the group. Wimbledon would be the tiebreaker. If these four guys played in the same field in Wimbledon for a period of 10 years or so I would guess that Borg would win five, Federer would win two, Sampras would win two and Nadal would win one. Give Borg six French titles with four going to Nadal, split the U.S. Open up with Federer getting four, Sampras three, Nadal two, and Borg one and split up the Australian Open with four to Borg, three to Federer, two to Nadal and one to Sampras. Thus the totals would be:

Borg: 16
Federer: 9
Nadal: 9
Sampras: 6

I'm guessing that Nadal would own a head to head edge over Federer and probably would win a higher percentage of Slam events that he entered but that Nadal would miss a few Slams due to injury. My basic reasoning is that Borg easily has the best Grand Slam winning percentage ever and he beat a lot of Grand Slam champions to win those events, so even in this stiff field he would still win a lot. Nadal has an all-court game but he is not as durable as Federer nor does he have Borg's finesse. Sampras is a marvelous serve and volleyer and one of my favorite players of all-time but he is completely outmatched on clay against this field and, with all conditions being equal, he is not going to dominate Wimbledon with Borg and Federer in the draw. Once Borg learned how to play on grass he became virtually invincible on that surface even against the big servers of his day and if a match goes five sets I trust his conditioning/mental resolve over Federer's.

I agree with you that in some ways Borg combines the best of Nadal and Federer.

Of course, the above just represents my opinion and there is no way to prove me right or prove me wrong because those four players will never meet each other in their primes with all conditions being equal. The only deviation from recorded history that I am making is assuming that in this hypothetical world Borg will elect to play in the Australian. Nadal is the most likely of the four to miss a Slam due to injury, which is why I think he would win nine Slams in fewer tries than Federer (Nadal might go nine for 36, while Federer goes nine for 40). If Borg skips the Australian like he did in the real world then Federer comes out on top, picking off Aussie titles sans Borg and likely sans the injured Nadal.

Anonymous said...

Your views about this hypothetical scenario are very interesting . I certainly agree that one can't prove you right or wrong as there is no definitive way to make comparisons. If we are strictly going with percentages at specific grandslam tournaments then I would agree with you on one count that Borg would be unrivalled at SW19 as he could deal with Sampras's serve and volley and would trump federer with his mental fortitude. So wimbledon goes to Borg for sure. Regarding the US open I think Borg deserves more credit than he's got . He is quite underrated about this and that he may win 3 of those 10. There is one thing I would partially disagree on though. At roland garros ( going by percentages) Nadal is simply unmatched , even by the legendary Bjorn. Nadal's winning percentages on clay are higher than all the others . His winning streak of 42 matches in monte carlo or 8 consecutive titles is an insane achievement and sets the highest ever standard of domination on a single surface. The only rival who would challenge nadal would be Borg as they are both grinders. I would give 6 to Nadal and 4 to Borg. I may be wrong here for I haven't seen enough footage of Borg playing to make a claim like this. I would leave the australian open out of this comparison as it was an insignificant tournament back in Borg's heyday. So what Borg would have done there is a matter of extreme speculation so my hypothetical comparison here is based on the other three slams only. If this field competed for 10 years.
I think Nadal would win 6 french titles, Borg would take 4. At the Wimbledon Borg would lead with a tally of 4, Federer would follow with 3, Sampras night take 2 and Nadal 1 in part due to his fitness issues. At the US open, Sampras and Federer would be tied at the top spot with 3 each. Nadal and Borg may share the rest 2 each. So adding these up

Borg -10
Nadal -9
Federer -6
Sampras-5.

So Borg comes out on top . A healthy Nadal is up there too. However, despite Federer's unrivalled durability , it would not be much of a factor in this stiff field. Sampras's surface weakness on clay would cost him dearly in this regard.
These are my opinions on this hypothetical situation which may or may not be right but I'm entitled to this opinion of mine.

Anonymous said...

Speaking on a different subject , I think the similarities between Borg and Nadal are startling. Borg and rafa dominated the french. He made 6 of 9 finals at wimbledon, nadal made 5 of 8. The US open was their worst slam and they had both suffered there due to knee injuries . Borg's record in these three slams is 139-15 and Nadal record is 122-15. Pretty close I think. Borg believed in making his opponent play one more ball and so does nadal. Their Mental fortitude and athletic abilities separate them from other greats. Footwork, speed , anticipation, stamina and defensive abilities are some others to name a few . Borg hits a top spin FOREHAND just like nadal does . He mastered clay and adopted to grass and so has nadal . They both achieved so much at such a tender age. On a historical front if we look up their best matches which happen to be the greatest tennis matches of all time ie the 1980 and the 2008 wimbledon epics. They both had match points in the 4th set tie breaks which they both dropped. Both these tie breaks are lauded as the greatest tie breaks ever. Nadal and Borg both went on to prevail in these epics .

Anonymous said...

I would also like to hear from you about the 90's. Some people say that tennis was more competitive in the 90's than today. Is it true ? There were 8 champions who were good contenders at the slams . Today there are 3 or 4. I like the present era more. But some people say the competition has dropped because there are 3 greats winning everything. Now I didn't watch or follow tennis in the nineties as I was too young. I know what's been going around these days but I would like to know your views of the era dominated by Sampras.

Eagerly awaiting a response.
Thank you.

David Friedman said...

Anonymous:

It depends how you define "competitive." Is "competitive" defined by the overall depth of the field--i.e., how many "good" players are competing--or simply by how many great players are at the top of the draw? In the 1990s, 10 different players reached the number one spot in the ATP rankings but Edberg and Becker were past their primes and--except for Sampras and Agassi--the other number ones would hardly be considered all-time greats. It seems like there are fewer "good" players today but that could also be an artifact of the dominance exhibited by Federer, Nadal and, more recently, Djokovic. Therefore, I am not sure how to compare the "competitiveness" of the 90s with the "competitiveness" of the 2000s, particularly since we don't know how Djokovic's career will turn out. Will Djokovic ultimately become an all-time great or just a guy who had a great 12-18 month stretch in an otherwise good but not great career?

Anonymous said...

Now that's a nice comparison you've made. I think you're quite right in pointing out how the dominance of Nadal and Federer has kept lesser players from rising up. In the Sampras Agassi era . Sampras dominated 2 slams for about 5 years. Agassi dominated nothing. They were both not as good at clay. The Roland garros was up for grabs as opposed to how it is being dominated by Nadal today. So we had different people winning the french and the aussie opens all the time and hence there were as many as 10 players ranked as high as number 1. Today's tennis could've been similar in many ways if Nadal and Federer hadn't dominated as much. Players like Hewitt, Safin , Roddick (5 finals), Del potro, and Andy Murray (most recently) could have easily broken through had it not been for the triumvirate of Federer-Nadal-Djokovic who dominated men's tennis like never before in more than 100 years. Prior to this year's US
Open the trio accounted for 29 of the last 30 slams. So in one way it is indeed the standard set by these players that amounts to incredible competition amongst themselves. Andy murray has made 5 finals , and 6 semifinals in his career. He has a promising future too.

Anonymous said...

About Djokovic , I believe he will have a great career ahead because75 % of the season is played on hard courts which is statistically Novak's best surface . Even if he's not very consistent he has lots of chances to win on hard courts . 2 slams are played on hard courts every year. That favours Djokovic and Federer's in the twilight of his career. His best competitors will be an injury prone Nadal and Murray. But the sun is shining bright for him

Anonymous said...

Lendl lost the first four slam finals he'd contested. So did his charge Murray. But Murray has now got the monkey off his back. Do you believe murray could finish with 8 slams like his coach lendl did ? Andy is already 25 years old which makes it unlikely I feel .
My biggest concern though is Nadal's fitness. I wonder how Rafa will fare once he returns which I'm sure he will. He's the only player who can emulate the great Borg's triple double. I hope he does it the next year as time is running out for the Borg of the 21st century

Anonymous said...

I partly believe that the ATP tour has planned the season in such a way that the hard court specialists have an undue advantage. 8-9 months of tennis is played on hard courts. 2 months on clay and one on grass . shouldn't it be 4 months for each of the surfaces? Just to be fair. The hard courts are easy to maintain but this offers undue advantage to some and minimizes others. Too much is played on the artificial surfaces. Tennis should have been the way it was Back in Borg's day. More of clay and grass, the natural surfaces. No wonder players get hurt. This is a very disheartening state of affairs with the tennis world of today it seems. No?

David Friedman said...

Anonymous:

It is risky to predict that anyone will win eight Slams simply because very few players have accomplished this. I think that Murray will win more than just one Slam but eight is probably a stretch; that would require him to either win at least two a year for the next three plus years or else continue winning Slams into his 30s.

David Friedman said...

Anonymous:

The tennis season has been too long and too grueling for quite some time, which is part of the reason that Borg and others annually skipped the Australian Open; they preferred to skip the least important Slam as opposed to trying to play year round and perhaps having an injury force them to miss one of the three more important Slams.

I don't think that Nadal's fitness is a problem as much as the fact that the schedule and his playing style combine to put a lot of strain on his knees.

Anonymous said...

More than the length of the season or the total number of tournaments played the problem lies in the fact that the ATP has given excessive importance to One particular surface (which has only recently evolved) mainly owing to economical reasons/maintenance problems. That is the reason we see so many players puling out with injuries

I'm sharing a link to an article in which Nadal expresses his opinions as to how tennis is now mainly limited to the artificial surfaces

Rafa: More hard courts 100 percent wrong | Tennis.com - Rafa: More hard courts 100 percent wrong | Tennis.com (via http://ble.ac/teamstream-) http://m.tennis.com/news/2012/09/rafa-more-hard-courts-100-percent-wrong/39557/#.UGNZIf0cnLw

I'd also thank you for sharing your views thus far.

Nikhil

David Friedman said...

Nikhil:

That link did not work for me but my larger point is that for quite some time the ATP Tour and the event organizers have been more focused on doing things that they believe will increase revenue as opposed to making things "fair" (to use your word). I agree with the contention made by Borg and others many years ago: the tennis tour should have a season and an offseason just like every other professional sport. It may seem like NBA basketball is a year round sport now but even the teams that make it to the Finals at least get to rest for some of June plus all of July, August and September before training camps begin. There should be fewer tennis events and those events should be played in a defined "season" but that will never happen because it will reduce TV and ticket revenue.