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).

Federer Outlasts Nadal to Claim First Grand Slam Title Since 2012

If you live in the eastern portion of the United States, you had to get up at 3 a.m. in order to watch Roger Federer face Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open Final. The lost sleep was worth it to see two of the greatest tennis players of all-time throw haymakers at each other for five sets. Federer, trailing 2-1 and down a break in the fifth set, rallied to win 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3. Federer extended his record to 18 career Grand Slam singles titles, while Nadal remains tied with Pete Sampras in second place on that list with 14.

Federer and Nadal did not play perfect tennis but they played at a breathtakingly high level for sustained periods. The fifth set was captivating theater. Initially, the match looked like a rerun of most of the earlier matches in the head to head rivalry (which Nadal still leads, 23-12, including 9-3 in Grand Slams and 6-3 in Grand Slam Finals). Federer led two sets to one but Nadal stormed back to take the fourth set and after he seized an early break in the fifth set it looked like Nadal, as usual, would wear Federer down mentally and physically. Nadal is the only player who not only beats Federer but seems to break Federer down, resulting in mental mistakes and physical fatigue--but this time Federer found another gear: although Nadal may have slowed a bit down the stretch, it did not look like Nadal lost so much as Federer just beat him with splendid shotmaking.

The Federer fans--and they are legion, including many media members--will say that this victory clinched greatest player of all-time status for Federer; they have been singing that refrain for a decade and, as Federer aged, they became increasingly strident, pointing to every Federer accomplishment as proof of his greatness while saying that every Federer loss did not mean much because he was already past his prime.

The reality is that this match was marvelous to watch but it did not change much about the facts, even if some people will change their perceptions. As mentioned above, Nadal still owns a decisive lead in the head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer early (taking 12 of the first 18 matches that they played against each other, culminating in an epic 2008 triumph in the Wimbledon Final on what could be called Federer's "home court") and he has beaten Federer late (winning six of their nine matches since 2011).

Nadal still owns a better Grand Slam winning percentage (14/47, 29.8%; Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is 18/69, 26.1%) and he has taken Federer's measure at Federer's best Grand Slam (Wimbledon) while Federer has not reciprocated at Roland Garros, where Nadal has won a record nine French Open titles (Federer's lone French Open win came without facing Nadal). Nadal owns the head to head advantage over Federer at the French Open (5-0) and the Australian Open (3-2), while Federer leads 2-1 at Wimbledon. They have never met at the U.S. Open. Nadal leads in ATP Masters/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches (12-4), best of five matches (11-4), clay court matches (13-2) and hard court matches (9-8).

Why would one match, as great as this one was, between a 35 year old Federer and a 30 year old Nadal weigh heavily enough to overcome that mountain of evidence pointing to Nadal's superiority? That just makes no sense. If anything, this match was an anomalous result between two players who are both past their primes, neither of whom had won a Grand Slam in years (2012 for Federer, 2014 for Nadal); the norm is for Nadal to beat Federer and to beat him in heartbreaking fashion by overpowering him. In the fifth set while trailing, Federer called the trainer over several times but if anything Nadal looked like the player who was a step slower than he had been earlier in the match. Federer may very well have aged better than Nadal and Nadal may not even be playing at 35, let alone winning Grand Slams--but when comparing two great players peak value matters more than durability, particularly when considering the fact that both players have had long careers by tennis standards.

Also, although Nadal's hard-charging style does not seem to be made for longevity--and he has always been less durable than Federer--who can dare say that Nadal cannot possibly win four Grand Slams in the next five years to tie Federer's record by the time that Nadal is the age that Federer is now? That seems unlikely--but no more unlikely than Federer emerging from a five year Grand Slam drought to outlast his greatest rival in five sets. Why have Federer's fans spent the past decade trying to close the greatest player of all-time discussion when Federer's greatest rival is still active? Reread that sentence carefully and the answer is not too hard to figure out.

Congratulations to Roger Federer for winning the Australian Open in dramatic fashion and kudos to both players for providing fantastic, high level tennis; hopefully, this is a rekindling of the rivalry and not the last, great spark.

Federer Versus Nadal: Once More, for the Ages

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, two of the greatest tennis players of all-time, are just hours away from facing each other once again--perhaps for the last time--in a Grand Slam Final. Many commentators are touting this as the most important head to head match of their rivalry.

I disagree with the notion that this one match--out of nearly three dozen head to head matches and hundreds of other matches in their respective careers--is the most important match for either player. Both Federer and Nadal are well past their primes and the Australian Open is indisputably the least significant of the four Grand Slams (the top non-Australian players routinely skipped this event in the 1970s and 1980s).

I am not convinced that any one match can or should be singled out as the most important but if we are going to pick one Federer-Nadal showdown to elevate above all of the others then the choice has to be Nadal's five set victory over Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon Final. That Nadal triumph ended Federer's Open Era record 65 match winning streak on grass courts, it obliterated once and for all the notion that Nadal was only a clay court specialist and it paved the way for Nadal to supplant Federer as the number one ranked player in the world. That match is also arguably the greatest match in tennis history. There is no way that a match in Australia between two past their prime greats can come even close to matching the historical significance of the Wimbledon match that they contested when they were both at the peak of their powers.

Federer is such a media darling that it is easy to forget how thoroughly Nadal has dominated their head to head rivalry. Nadal leads Federer 23-11, including 9-2 in Grand Slams and 6-2 in Grand Slam Finals. Nadal beat Federer early in the rivalry (taking 11 of 17 matches prior to their 2008 Wimbledon showdown) and he has also dominated as both players moved past their primes (winning six of their eight matches since 2011). If Nadal beats Federer in the 2017 Australian Open Final then Nadal will join Roy Emerson and Rod Laver as the only players to win each Grand Slam at least twice (Federer claimed his sole French Open title by not having to face Nadal).

Federer holds the male record with 17 Grand Slam singles titles, but it is important to keep in mind that tennis professionals were not permitted to play in the Grand Slams until the Open Era began in 1968; otherwise, Rod Laver could very well have won 17 or more Grand Slams. Also, Federer has won 25% of his Grand Slam appearances (17/68), a lower percentage than Nadal's 30.4% (14/46); Federer is tennis' Emmitt Smith, a great player who set records based more on durability than dominance.

It must be mentioned in this context that Bjorn Borg, the Sandy Koufax of tennis, holds the record for percentage of Grand Slams won (11/27, 40.7%) and his simultaneous dominance of the French Open's slow clay plus Wimbledon's fast grass is unparalleled; Borg won both tournaments from 1978-80 and when he stopped playing Grand Slams at just 26 he held the modern record for most titles at both events, six and five respectively. Put Borg, Federer and Nadal in the same era with the same equipment and Borg would likely emerge as the best player based on conditioning, mental toughness and ability to dominate multiple surfaces.

Mary Carillo recently offered great insight about the Federer-Nadal rivalry: 

I have said and argued with John McEnroe and Ted Robinson during our French Open telecasts for many years that you cannot anoint Roger Federer the greatest of all time if he isn't the greatest of his own time. And it's not just on red clay. Nadal has the edge on hard courts as well. Like in boxing, it's all about the matchup. When Roger is playing at his luminous best he has no need to worry about the other side of the net. But if he is playing Nadal, even his best is often not enough.

People conflate [Federer's] beauty with supremacy and blur the line between high art and [Nadal's] impossible-to-ignore domination. I think Roger Federer is the most stylish, elegant and gifted tennis player I've ever seen. Roger is all that is right in this tennis world. Rafa Nadal is his perfect rival--powerful, explosive, gritty and gutsy.

Nadal has proven to be more dominant on more surfaces than Federer. Nadal owns a decisive advantage in their head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer in Federer's prime on Federer's best surface. I cannot imagine how this Australian Open Final would materially alter my opinion about Nadal and Federer; if Nadal wins, this is just a continuation of a well-established pattern of Nadal's superiority, while if Federer wins that would not change the fact that Nadal still owns a huge head to head advantage that he obtained when both players were at or near their primes.

Any Federer fan who hypes up this match as Federer's great opportunity to prove that he is a greater player than Nadal should be prepared to make the opposite declaration if Nadal wins; it makes no sense to act like this match matters if Federer wins but to give Federer a pass if he loses. Such thinking reminds me of a writer who years ago claimed that a Lakers-Rockets game seven would be the biggest game of Kobe Bryant's career (the writer hoped/expected that a loss would somehow define Bryant's legacy)--but after Bryant's Lakers won, this writer did not make any comment about this victory defining Bryant's legacy in a positive way.

Federer and Nadal have both defined their legacies already. This match will be one more chapter--and perhaps a poignant/nostalgic one if it turns out to be their last Grand Slam Final battle--but no one should make bold declarations about all-time rankings based on the outcome.

My prediction? Nadal wins in four sets. Either during the match or shortly thereafter, Federer will indicate that he was not at full strength physically. Nadal will be humble in victory and declare that Federer is still the greatest player; Federer's media fans will agree with Nadal and will state that Nadal's victory over an aging Federer is not really that significant (but if Federer somehow wins this match, brace yourself for a barrage of articles declaring that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time).

Novak is No Joke: Djokovic Defeats Nadal in Match for the Ages

Novak Djokovic's epic 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5 victory over Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final dramatically demonstrated that Djokovic is still the best player in the game today. Since Nadal has accomplished so much more than Djokovic in Grand Slam events despite the fact that their careers almost perfectly overlap, it was fair to wonder if Djokovic's sensational 2011 campaign merely signified a one year wonder or in fact marked the belated rise of a true all-time great (Bjorn Borg's career--arguably still the greatest in the Open Era--was already all but over by the time he was Djokovic's age). I don't believe that one event necessarily proves or disproves a sweeping characterization of a player's career but the 2012 Australian Open certainly lends credence to the idea that soon--if not right now--Djokovic must be ranked somewhere among the all-time greats; I will refrain from making the all too common mistake, particularly among tennis commentators, of hastily proclaiming Djokovic to be the greatest player of all time, a pronouncement that seemed to follow every Grand Slam victory by Roger Federer--but it is clear that Djokovic is the greatest player of this time and the longer this time lasts the stronger a claim Djokovic will have to be ranked very highly on the all-time list.

Djokovic's triumph over Nadal is the longest Grand Slam singles final match ever, officially lasting 5:53. The play was hardly perfect--Djokovic committed 69 unforced errors while hitting 57 winners and Nadal had an even drearier ratio of 71 unforced errors to 44 winners--but it was fast, furious and tenacious, making for gripping viewing that may have been almost as emotionally draining for the spectators as it was for the players.

Djokovic has joined an elite group of men (Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal) who won at least three Grand Slam singles titles in a row since the Open Era began in 1968; Nadal lost to Djokovic in each of those championship matches, earning the dubious distinction of becoming the first player to lose three straight Grand Slam finals. Nadal has now lost seven straight matches overall to Djokovic, each of them a finals match. Nadal still enjoys a narrow 16-14 advantage head to head, but Djokovic has the edge in finals matches (7-5) and Grand Slam finals (3-1). This was the first five set duel in the 30 Djokovic-Nadal encounters.

Nadal is just one year older than Djokovic but has won twice as many Grand Slam Singles titles (10-5). The Australian Open is the only Slam that Djokovic has won multiple times (three) and the French Open is the lone Slam that he has yet to win; Nadal has already completed the career Slam, along the way winning a pair of Wimbledon titles and tying Borg's record with six French Open crowns. Nadal twice won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year (2008 and 2010), coming close to equaling Borg's fantastic feat of winning both events for three consecutive years (1978-80; Borg won the French Open in 1974-75 and 1978-81 and he took five straight Wimbledons from 1976-80).

It is the beauty and agony of sports that dominance can balance on a razor's edge; in the 2007 NFL season, the New England Patriots came within three minutes of achieving unprecedented 19-0 perfection but the story of that season ultimately became not their drive for an undefeated championship season but rather the emergence of Eli Manning and the New York Giants. The story of the 2012 Australian Open ultimately is Djokovic's victory but Nadal came within two points of taking a 5-2 lead in the fifth set; if Nadal had come back from a two set to one deficit to triumph in five sets we undoubtedly would look at both players differently, even though objectively the difference between those divergent outcomes can be literally measured in inches.

Nadal survived three break points at 4-4 in the fourth set en route to winning that set in a tiebreaker and he seemed to have the match in hand when he took a 4-2 lead in the fifth set--but Nadal missed a routine backhand volley that could have put him up 40-15 in the seventh game and Nadal unraveled after that, while Djokovic managed to hit timely shots despite showing obvious signs of physical fatigue (I make a distinction between physical and mental fatigue because I think that the outcome--and those timely shots that Djokovic converted--indicates that he retained mental sharpness throughout the match even as his body began to betray him).

It is hard to take seriously the notion that Roger Federer is the greatest player of all-time for the simple reason that Federer is not even the greatest player of his time; Nadal owns a decisive 18-9 head to head advantage versus Federer, including a victory in the 2012 Australian Open semifinal that increased Nadal's margin over Federer in Grand Slam play to 8-2. Nadal has accumulated enough overall achievements to merit inclusion in the greatest player of all-time discussion; in addition to completing the career Slam, Nadal has won 10 career Grand Slam singles titles overall (tying with Bill Tilden for sixth-seventh on the all-time list) and he has spent 102 weeks as the number one ranked player (the sixth most since the ATP began using computerized rankings in 1973), finishing in the top spot in the year end rankings twice (2008 and 2010). If all Nadal had to his credit was a slight head to head advantage over Federer in a small number of matches then those head to head results would just be a bizarre historical footnote--but Nadal has beaten Federer decisively head to head in a large sample size of encounters and Nadal has not just defeated Federer due to some matchup quirk but he has also been a dominant player for quite some time. A little over a year ago, Djokovic was not even on the radar in terms of being the greatest player now--let alone the greatest player of all-time--and his recent head to head dominance against Nadal still has not wiped out the huge advantage that Nadal built up versus Djokovic in previous years. Djokovic is the best player right now but his overall career can not yet be compared favorably with Nadal's or Federer's. Instead of prematurely trying to rank and classify every player we should simply enjoy the great tennis being played by Djokovic, Nadal and Federer; the all-time rankings will sort themselves out over time, as we saw with the Chris Evert-Martina Navratilova rivalry that started out lopsided in Evert's favor before becoming even more lopsided in Navratilova's favor.