Move over Roger Federer: there is a new King of Grand Slam tennis. Rafael Nadal claimed his record 13th French Open singles title--and tied Federer for first on the all-time list with 20 Grand Slam singles titles--by defeating Novak Djokovic 6-0, 6-2, 7-5 in the French Open. Nadal is the first Open Era (i.e., post-1968) player to win four Grand Slam singles titles without losing a single set, breaking the record he shared with Bjorn Borg. Nadal is also the first Open era player to win six Grand Slam singles titles after the age of 30. For context, consider that Don Budge, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg each won six Grand Slam singles titles in their entire careers!
It has been fashionable for well over a decade to designate Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time, even though Nadal owns a decisive 24-16 head to head advantage versus Federer, including 10-4 in Grand Slam matches. They have never met at the U.S. Open, but Nadal leads 6-0 at the French Open and 3-1 at the Australian Open, while Federer leads 3-1 at Wimbledon; it is important to note that
Nadal beat Federer at Federer's best Grand Slam (Wimbledon) but Federer
has never beaten Nadal at Nadal's best Grand Slam (French Open). Nadal
has won 35 Masters 1000 titles compared to Federer's 28.
The only meaningful statistical advantage that Federer had over Nadal was total Grand Slam singles titles, though of course Federer enjoyed a head start since he is nearly five years older than Nadal. Now that Nadal has tied Federer--with a great opportunity to pass Federer--it is difficult to find a rational justification to rank Federer ahead of Nadal. Federer's fans would argue that head to head does not matter or that the head to head comparison is somehow unfair because so many of the matches were played on clay, which is Nadal's best surface. Head to head does not matter if one player has the clearly superior overall resume, or if the head to head sample size is small, or if the head to head sample size pits one player in his prime versus another player who either had not reached his prime or was clearly past his prime. Here, Nadal's overall resume is certainly not worse than Federer's, the head to head sample size is large, and--if anything--in the early going it could be said that Federer was in his prime while Nadal was still improving. In any case, Nadal built a head to head advantage early on in the matchup, and has maintained it ever since.
Federer
is nearly five years older than Nadal and the record shows that Nadal consistently accomplished
more at a younger age than Federer did. For example, by age 21 Nadal had won
three Grand Slam singles titles while Federer had not won any by age 21.
Nadal won his 20th Grand Slam singles title at age 34; Federer had won
17 Grand Slam singles titles at age 34. Federer has been remarkably durable, and his fans speculated (hoped?) that Nadal's body would break down but Nadal has persevered to remain a dominant player in his mid-30s.
Nadal has a better career Grand Slam winning percentage than Federer, winning in 20 of his 60 appearances (.333) compared to 20/79 (.253) for Federer.
What about Djokovic? He has a slight head to head advantage over Nadal (29-27), but Djokovic has won three fewer Grand Slam singles titles despite being just one year younger than Nadal. Djokovic's Grand Slam winning percentage (17/62; .274) is better than Federer's but worse than Nadal's. Djokovic has a head to head lead over Federer (27-23, including 11-6 in Grand Slam matches).
It makes no sense to crown Federer as the greatest of all-time when he is not even clearly the greatest of his era. Taking everything into account (totals, winning percentages, head to head), Nadal has the best resume of this era, but it is possible that Djokovic could still pass both Federer and Nadal.
The player who unfortunately is too often left out of this conversation is Bjorn Borg. If you are too young to remember Borg then the best way to explain him is that during his era he was Federer and Nadal combined. Borg dominated Wimbledon with five straight titles (1976-80), setting the modern record later broken by Pete Sampras (and then surpassed by Federer)--and at the same time Borg dominated the French Open with six titles in eight years (1974-75, 1978-81), setting the modern record later broken by Nadal. Borg is remembered for having a relatively brief career, but he had a long run at the top: his record of winning at least one Grand Slam singles title for eight straight years (1974-81) stood for 19 years until Sampras matched it. Federer equaled this mark in 2010, and then Nadal broke it by winning at least one Grand Slam title for 10 straight years (2005-2014).
Nearly 40 years after he retired (not counting his brief comeback), Borg still holds many records, including some feats that may never be matched:
1) Best Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407; 11/27)
2) Best Open Era Grand Slam singles match winning percentage (.898; 141-16).
3) Best overall winning percentage against Top 10 players (.725)
4) Four consecutive years with overall match winning percentage above .900 (1977-80)
5) 10 consecutive titles won
By virtue of their longevity, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have amassed larger totals than Borg, but ranking tennis players purely by totals would be like ranking NFL running backs purely by yards and then calling Emmitt Smith the greatest running back of all-time. Borg was the best player of his era on both clay and grass, a simultaneous dominance that may never be matched again. Borg did not have a contemporary who dominated him the way that Nadal dominates Federer.
There is no way to prove this unless someone invents a time machine, but I would submit that from a standpoint of skill set, physical conditioning, and mental toughness, Federer at his Wimbledon best would not beat Borg at his Wimbledon best (assuming that both players are provided identical equipment). We don't even have to talk about Borg versus Federer at the French Open.
Borg versus Nadal at the French Open might be the most intriguing hypothetical one on one matchup in any sport. Nadal has played longer than Borg did and thus dominated for a longer time, but what would happen if Borg at his French Open best played Nadal at his French Open best? That is a tough call. However, Borg at his Wimbledon best would beat Nadal at his Wimbledon best.
In the absence of those time machine matches, all we can say for sure is that (1) Nadal is nudging aside Federer for the distinction of most accomplished Open Era career, with Djokovic potentially waiting in the wings, and (2) some of Borg's winning percentage records may never be touched.
Related Articles:
Another Perspective on Borg/Nadal/Federer (February 7, 2009)
Sports Illustrated Figures Out That It Was Premature to Crown Federer (May 14, 2009)
How Can Federer be the Greatest Player of All-Time if He is Not Even the Greatest Player of His Time? (June 19, 2011)
Federer and Nadal as Non-Religious Experience (March 27, 2012)
