Djokovic Ties Nadal's Career Grand Slam Singles Titles Record

Novak Djokovic just won his record 10th Australian Open singles title, tying Rafael Nadal's record for career Grand Slam singles titles (22), and matching Nadal's feat of winning at least 10 titles at the same Grand Slam; Nadal holds the record for victories in a single Grand Slam event with 14 French Open titles.

It is interesting to recall that Roy Emerson was the first player who dominated the Australian Open, winning six singles titles there to hold the event's record until Djokovic surpassed him in 2019. Emerson also held the career Grand Slam singles title record (12) until Pete Sampras won his 13th in 2000. Emerson was an all-time great, but even at his peak he was not given much consideration in the greatest player of all-time conversation for several reasons, including (1) he won all of his Grand Slam titles as an amateur before the Open Era (when professionals were permitted to compete for Grand Slam titles), (2) half of his Grand Slam wins came in the least important Grand Slam (Australian Open), (3) outside of the Australian Open he won six of the 45 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.133), and (4) Rod Laver dominated their head to head rivalry when they were both amateurs before the Open Era and then when they were both professionals during the Open Era. A good case could be made that Laver was the greatest tennis player prior to the Open Era.

For most of the history of the Australian Open, the top non-Australian players often skipped the event. Bjorn Borg played there once. Jimmy Connors played there twice in a Grand Slam singles career extending from 1969-1992. John McEnroe played there five times in his career, but only twice in his first 12 years on the professional tour.

Djokovic has been more productive on more surfaces for a longer period of time against stronger competition than Emerson, but Djokovic is similar to Emerson in the sense that the other great players of his era have won more often in the more prestigious Grand Slams. 

Comparing Djokovic's career Grand Slam totals in four Grand Slam events to the Grand Slam totals of other greats who spent most of their careers only playing in three Grand Slam events ignores historical context, particularly because 10 of Djokovic's 22 Grand Slam wins came in the Australian Open. In short, I would not rank Djokovic as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone of all-time--at least not on the basis of Grand Slam success or dominance. 

Djokovic has won 22 of the 69 Grand Slam singles events that he entered, a winning percentage of .319, but without the Australian Open--by far the least historically significant Grand Slam--he has won eight out of 51 (.157), which is more comparable with Ivan Lendl's career numbers (eight out of 57 overall, .140) than with the career numbers posted by the players who usually headline the greatest player of all-time conversation (no disrespect intended toward Lendl, who is actually a very underrated great player).

Nadal has won 22 of the 67 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.328), while Federer won 20 out of 81 (.247). Federer's fans argue that his long career lowered his winning percentage, but that is not the whole story. Federer's Grand Slam career started slowly--he did not win a title in his first 16 Grand Slam appearances (and that excludes two other times that he lost in the qualification rounds before even reaching the main draw). Then, in his prime he could not beat Nadal at the French Open before finally also losing to him at Wimbledon; at no point was Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage as good as Nadal's at a similar point in his career.

Federer has now dropped from joint second place to third place on the career Grand Slam singles titles list with 20 wins, but I doubt that will lower the volume of those who insist that he is the greatest tennis player of all-time. Federer's adoring fans have consistently been immune to facts, logic, and numbers; they supported him even though Nadal dominated him head to head throughout the overlapping portion of their careers, they supported him after Nadal conquered him on his best surface (in 2008 on the grass at Wimbledon), and they supported him after Nadal surpassed him in career Grand Slam singles titles--even though the primary reason for Federer's alleged superiority was supposed to be Federer's overall dominance of all surfaces and all Grand Slams.

Bjorn Borg, the Sandy Koufax of tennis, should be front and center in any greatest player conversations, but his name is too often not mentioned, the same way that great players from the past in other sports are also being forgotten. Borg holds the career Grand Slam singles winning percentage record (11/28, .393), and he accomplished that despite skipping the Australian Open in nine of the 10 years that he played in at least one Grand Slam. The supposed brevity of Borg's career is sometimes criticized, but he won at least one Grand Slam for eight straight years, a longevity record that stood from 1981 until Pete Sampras matched that mark in 1993. Federer later tied the record as well (2010), and only Nadal has broken it (10). Borg's reign at the top of Grand Slam tennis is actually one of the longest, at least in the Open Era.

If Federer's fans ever become intellectually honest, they will have to concede (1) Federer never achieved the simultaneous two surface dominance that Borg did when Borg simultaneously held the modern career records for French Open singles titles (six) and Wimbledon singles titles (five), and (2) Federer's career Grand Slam singles totals--the last straw that his fans desperately clung to--have been surpassed not only by Nadal but also by Djokovic (albeit with the caveat that Djokovic's Grand Slam career is not as impressive overall, for the reasons stated above).

Nadal is Dominant Again

Rafael Nadal is unlikely to ever match Roger Federer's durability and grace but the frailties of Nadal's body and the brute force nature of his playing style do not diminish his greatness. Nadal defeated Federer 5-7, 6-4, 6-3 in the Western & Southern Open quarterfinals last weekend en route to claiming his ninth title in 12 ATP Tour events this year. This was Nadal's 26th ATP World Tour Masters title, extending his all-time record. Federer has won 21 such titles and Novak Djokovic, who currently is the top ranked player in the world, is third on the all-time list with 14. Nadal won the Rogers Cup event in Canada two weeks ago, so he has now captured consecutive hard court titles in back to back weeks for the first time in his career.

Federer rarely misses an event due to injury and his record of 23 straight Grand Slam semifinals appearances--more than doubling the standard previously set by Rod Laver and Ivan Lendl (10)--may never be broken. Federer's game is very aesthetically pleasing; when he is at his best, he seems to glide all over the court, flicking winners without breaking a sweat.

Nadal sometimes misses months at a time due to injuries and he prowls the court like a hungry predator hunting for food, not a ballet dancer, but Nadal has already surpassed Federer in several important categories. Nadal is the second youngest player to win 10 Grand Slam singles titles (trailing only Bjorn Borg). Nadal owns 12 Grand Slam singles titles in 35 appearances, a .343 winning percentage that is much better than Federer's .298 winning percentage. Nadal has won at least one Grand Slam title in nine straight years, eclipsing Borg's previous record of eight, so if he can string together four or five healthy years while maintaining that winning percentage then he could match Federer's record 17 Grand Slam singles titles.

Federer's durability, consistency and aesthetically pleasing game have inspired many commentators to crown him as the greatest player of all-time but such a designation unfairly ignores the accomplishments of Laver and Borg. Federer's supporters also have to disregard (or attempt to rationalize) Nadal's 21-10 head to head advantage over Federer. While the matchups Laver-Federer and Borg-Federer will only take place in the theater of imagination, there is irrefutable video evidence that Nadal bludgeoned Federer into submission nearly two dozen times; no such footage taints the greatest ever titles that have been unofficially awarded in other sports. It is erroneous to suggest that Nadal only started beating Federer after Federer's overall dominance waned. Nadal is younger than Federer but Nadal defeated Federer five of the first six times that they met, meaning that he took down Federer at the peak of Federer's game (and before Nadal had reached his prime). Federer fans may prefer to view Nadal's most recent triumph over Federer as a sign that Federer has declined but the reality is that Nadal's win is just a reaffirmation of a superiority that has been repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated for several years. 

Putting Nadal's Shocking First Round Loss at Wimbledon in Proper Historical Context

Just two weeks after capturing his record eighth French Open title, Rafael Nadal lost in the first round at Wimbledon to 135th ranked Steve Darcis, falling in straight sets--7-6 (4), 7-6 (8), 6-4--to a player who has won just two career ATP titles. This is the first time that Nadal lost in the first round of a Grand Slam. Nadal's setback reemphasizes how difficult it is to win both the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year and how rare it is even for an all-time great to make it through his whole career without suffering a first round loss in a Grand Slam.

Bjorn Borg's "triple double"--winning both the French Open and Wimbledon for three straight years (1978-80)--is unprecedented. When Borg retired at 26, he simultaneously held the modern record for most French Open titles (six) and most Wimbledon titles (five); no other player has ever held both records. Borg never lost in the first round of a Grand Slam and he only once lost in the second round; he made the Finals 16 times in 27 Grand Slam appearances, an astonishing .593 percentage.

Nadal has reached a Grand Slam Final 17 times in 35 appearances (.486). Nadal won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year in 2008 and 2010, while Roger Federer accomplished this in 2009. Rod Laver is the only other male player to win the "Channel Slam" during the Open Era (post-1968). Laver reached a Grand Slam Final 25 times in 55 appearances (.455), but he lost several prime years of his Grand Slam career because prior to the Open Era professionals were not permitted to play in Grand Slam events; without those restrictions, Laver would have notched several more Grand Slam wins and Finals appearances. He lost in the first round of a Grand Slam five times. Federer has reached a Grand Slam Final 24 times in 56 appearances (.429). He lost in the first round of a Grand Slam six times. Federer may be the most durable great player in tennis history but he is not as dominant as Borg, Nadal or Laver.

Nadal's first round Wimbledon loss is surprising, whether or not he is completely healthy (last year he lost in the second round at Wimbledon and then had to take seven months off to rest his balky knees), but his Grand Slam career is not seriously diminished by this one blemish.

How Can Federer be the Greatest Player of All-Time if He is Not Even the Greatest Player of His Time?

I don't know who the greatest male tennis player of all-time is but I may be the only person honest enough to admit that I don't know; prior to Rafael Nadal's convincing four set victory over Roger Federer in the French Open finals, commentator John McEnroe declared that Federer could cement his place as the greatest player of all-time by beating Nadal. McEnroe knows a lot about tennis but that is a ludicrous statement; discounting the not insignificant detail that the likelihood of Federer defeating Nadal anywhere--let alone on clay--is slim, why would one match totally define not just the Federer-Nadal rivalry but the totality of tennis history? With that French Open victory, Nadal now enjoys a 17-8 head to head advantage against Federer, including 7-2 in Grand Slam matches and 6-2 in Grand Slam finals. Any rational, objective observer would need to see Federer win nine straight matches against Nadal before seriously entertaining the notion that Federer is even as good as Nadal, let alone better than champions like Borg and Laver who did not suffer at the hands of their top rivals the way that Federer has been tortured by Nadal.

Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert enjoyed the greatest rivalry in tennis history; they each won 18 Grand Slam singles titles--clay court master Evert captured a record seven French Open titles, while grass court master Martina Navratilova claimed a record nine Wimbledon crowns--but few knowledgeable people would rank Evert equal with, let alone above, Navratilova mainly because Navratilova won the head to head series 43-37. Nadal has not yet matched Federer's total for career Grand Slam titles but Nadal is accumulating those laurels at a faster pace than any male player other than Borg and Nadal's mastery of Federer far exceeds Navratilova's edge over Evert. We will never see Federer play on equal footing against Borg or Laver, so comparisons of their careers involve making judgments about different eras, styles of play, equipment and so forth--but we have seen Nadal pummel Federer on multiple surfaces at numerous venues around the world for the past half dozen years. That accomplishment alone does not prove that Nadal is better than Borg or Laver but it gives a very strong indication that Nadal is better than Federer.