The West Indies are preapearing to take in Mahi and his team in a four ODI series starting 26th june, the West Indies have announced their squad for the first two one days.

West Indies have called up Darren Bravo, the younger brother of all-rounder Dwayne, for the series. The Bravo brothers were named in a 13-man squad for the first two games in Jamaica on 26 and 28 June.

Although Batsman Lendl Simmons and all-rounder Kieron Pollard have been left out of the squad and replaced by Runako Morton and Narsingh Deonarine.

A lot of arm-chair Nadal fanboys keep touting the stat that in Grand Slams, Nadal has a 5-2 head to head record against Federer and hence Federer hasn’t “dominated” Rafa.

But these guys completely miss the point (which all tennis legends like Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Mcenroe and Becker accept):

Nadal didn’t even make ONE  U.S. Open final during Federer’s reign!!!

ZILCH. ZERO. Not ONE SINGLE final in the 5 YEARS Federer won.

Why should we bother about Federer losing to Nadal, if we don’t scrutinize Nadal losing to weak players in US and Aus Opens? In fact, Nadal lost to way lower ranked Soderling in 4th round of his FAVOURITE surface after winning 4 times.  Federer has lost ONLY in the finals of Wimbledon since his 1st win in 2003  and NEVER lost US Open after he first won it in 2004.

Nadal is extremely inconsistent in Hardcourt Slams.

Considering Roger’s awesome hardcourt Slam record, the head to head would easily be in FEDERER’s favour  of at least 8-5 (4 US Open wins and 2 Aus Open wins in Federer’s prime).

By  refusing to acknowledge Nadal’s miserable hard court slam record, and refusing to see Federer’s total dominance in US Open, the head -to-head stat supporters are  PUNISHING Federer for his CONSISTENCY in reaching FINALS of ALL slams, and REWARDING Nadal for his failure in U.S.Open and Aus Open.

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically Nadal fanboys have been devastated by Federer’s French open win and the fact that he has been declared the Greatest Tennis Player of ALL Time by none other than Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe etc etc.

The right way to check slam dominance, is to take up ALL THE SLAMS in which BOTH Nadal and Federer participated and check the winning percentage you find that Nadal is way inferior to Federer than Agassi was to Sampras (and not otherwise as Nadal fanboys love to believe).  When you add the 2 Wimbledons, 4 Aus Opens and 5 US Opens that Nadal and Federer haven’t met in, but Federer won 2 , 3  & 5 of those Slams respectively, you get the TRUE picture.

Over time, Federer will dominate sports history books, while Nadal may remain a footnote (unless he starts winning 10more slams…)

Also read: how-nadal-maintains-his-head-to-head-record-against-federer

To quote a fellow tennis enthusiast & blogger (see comments section below):  “…Roger leads (Rafa) 29-20 and 35-23, in the Same Tournament Entered and the Titles in Total Tournaments Available, respectively. On top of that Roger leads 12-6 in the Same 21 Grand Slams Played.”

This is an awesome stat and once and for all makes the lousy “Roger didn’t dominate Rafa” argument completely untenable. Read the full analysis here which debunks the popular myth that Roger never dominated Rafa. A better and more statistically valid data set to measure GOAT and true Grand Slam head to head is the above mentioned  “Same 21 Grand Slams Played”.  Click here to read more:  There’s More to Nadal and Federer Than Head-To-Head Meetings

Roger Federer won his first French Open yesterday, dispatching of Robin Soderling in straight sets, 6-1, 7-6 (1), 6-4.   With his now 14th Grand Slam title, Federer has tied Pete Sampras’ record for the number of all time grand slam victories and the clamor anointing Federer as the best tennis player ever is growing louder and louder.  The clamor was pretty loud already, but by getting the proverbial monkey off his back by capturing the elusive French Open, the clamor is at a fever pitch.

In trying to assess Federer’s candidacy for greatest of all time, my primary criteria would include the following factors:

1. Performance in Grand Slams
2. Level of Dominance during his era
3. All around performance (Grass, Hard-court,  Clay)
4. Longevity

Luckily, there is a fair amount of data available on wikipedia and the ATP web-site which I used to evaluate the top players since the mid seventies across metrics related to the criteria above.    Of course, players like Rod Laver and Bill Tilden usually will come in the conversation about best player ever, however, since they played pre-dominantly before the open era and a full set of statistics are not readily available for their careers, I’ve left them out of this analysis.

For 12 top players, I’ve selected key metrics for the above criteria to compare the players.

The players (listed in order of most to least recent career start date)

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Andre Agassi
4. Pete Sampras
5. Jim Courier
6. Boris Becker
7. Stefan Edberg
8. Mats Wilander
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John McEnroe
11. Jimmy Connors
12. Bjorn Borg

The key comparison metrics for each criteria

• Performance in Grand Slams
  • % of Grand Slams Entered won (Champion)
  • Number of Grand Slam Titles
• Level of Dominance during his era
  • % of Career Ranked # 1
• All Around Performance (Grass, Hard-Court, Clay)
  • # of Grand Slam Titles by Tournament
  • Career Grand Slam Achievement
• Longevity
  • # of weeks as # 1 Ranked Player

Following are charts for Top 5 players in each key metric over their career  (for still active players Nadal and Federer, it is through June 7, 2009)

• Borg had a remarkable career winning 41% of the Grand Slams he entered.  Of course, he may have been helped out by the fact he only played in 2 Australian Opens during his 9 year come back (excluding his brief come back in the early nineties).
• Federer is next at 35% and has ample opportunity to gain ground or more likely lose ground given the current state of his competition with Nadal and his advancing age.
• Of note, Nadal at a very high rate of 27% this early in his career.

• Federer’s 41% of his career as the #1 player edges, Sampras’ 39%.    Again, Lendl is right near the top at 32%.

Legend: GS- All Grand Slams, A- Australian, F- French, W- Wimbledon, U- US

• Federer and Sampras have 14 Grand Slam titles each, but only Federer has the career Grand Slam with this week’s French.  The French alluded Sampras in his 13 attempts.
• The only other player with a career Grand Slam was Agassi.
• Borg won 11 titles in a 9 year career, but never won the Australian or US Open.

• Sampras’ 286 weeks is the class here; Federer at 237 weeks is within shouting distance if he can once again take the # 1 ranking and de-throne Nadal.  With Nadal’s current injury challenges, that may happen sooner than we think.
• The often overlooked Lendl is second at 270 weeks.

The full set of data for the 12 players reviewed is shown below.

Conclusion

At this point in his career, I would say Federer statistically is the best of the last 40 years (again leaving out Laver and others which pre-dates my analysis).  This is fully based on statistical review and isn’t considering who had the best natural talent, which era had the best competitive environment and which had the least competitive field, and other factors beyond the actual final results.  But based on the numbers, Federer would be the best as of today because:

• He’s tied Sampras for the most career grand slams at 14.
• Unlike Sampras, he’s now won the French Open and has a career Grand Slam which Sampras wasn’t able to achieve
• He’s also spent 41% of his career at # 1, more than any other player (but there is a big if with this one…..)
• He’s near Sampras’ record of 286 consecutive weeks as # 1, at # 3 at 237 weeks, with some additional time to catch up.

Now the big ifs— Federer has more time left in his career and likely many more battles with Nadal.   Nadal at such a young age of 23, already has 6 grand slam titles and only needs a US Open title to get his own career Grand Slam.   The competition between Nadal and Federer may definitely reduce the % of his career as the number 1 player in the world by the time his career is over.

When it is all said and done, I expect that Nadal will be considered the best of all time, with ample opportunity to catch Federer in total number of grand slams, get his own personal career grand slam, and even challenge for the longest period of weeks ranked # 1 in the world.  (See more on the Federer-Nadal rivalry here in my earlier posting about sports rivalries).

Now looking at this data, if I rank my Top 5 of the last 40 years (as of today), I’d go:

1. Federer— for reasons listed above
2. Sampras-  Grand Slam excellence, time at # 1, absence of career grand slam keeps him from # 1
3. Borg- absolute domination at Wimbledon and French, winning 93% and 96% of his matches at those tournaments during has career and 41% of all grand slams he entered.  Lack of longevity and performance in US open and Australian Open brings him down.
4. Lendl-  Long periods at # 1 during his career (32% and 270 consecutive weeks), 8 career grand slams, multiple time grand slam champion of each tournament but Wimbledon.
5. Nadal- in short period of time, already 6 grand slam titles, won 86% of his grand slam matches which is only exceeded by Borg and Federer.

Again, with the caveats that Federer and Nadal have plenty of time to alter the course of their current trajectory, up or down.  But as of today, Roger Federer is the best men’s tennis player of the last 40 years and I’d go as far as to say the best of all time.

Update June 23, 2009: In the original write-up above, I stated that I believed that Nadal would eventually end-up being greatest of all time.  However, after doing further analysis on top players careers by age group (see posting here), I no longer believe Nadal will achieve that title.   I believe Federer will continue to be GOAT (Greatest of All Time) even after Nadal retires.

Update July 5, 2009:  Today, Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in the final of Wimbledon, another 5 set marathon including a 16-14 fifth set, only unlike last year, this year against Nadal, Federer was victorious, 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14.  With this victory, Federer stands alone with 15 Grand Slam titals, breaking his tie with Sampras, and further cementing his status as best of all time.

So….I grew up watching great tennis players such as Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras and Becker…..Well Becker always sticks out as one of the unique people in the world who inpregnated somebody after receiving “oral pleasure” in a restaurant toilet…while his wife was in hospital with labour pains. Classy. 

Each one of those players had something about them. Lendl and Edberg- nice guys who played the game in the traditional way. When their time was up Sampras and Agassi came along to take over. Sampras, a monkey like creature who had no personality and married Adam Sandler’s girlfriend from the cult movie “Billy Madison”. Sampras won a lot of money and  tournaments being “mister nice guy” but not a lot of fans. Agassi on the other hand had the wild “David Lee Roth” hair style, wore fluoro cloured shirts and sweatbands, plus he was always agressive and fought over every call he disagreed with. Agassi also married Brook Shields (before his current wife Seffi Graf….What amazing tennis playing children they will produce). Agassi was that wild boy next door the fans loved.

With a few pretenders coming and going such as Jim Courier, Pat Rafter, Leighton Hewitt, Gustavo Cuertin, Juan Carlos Ferrero but to name a few we now find ourselves in the “Federer/Nadal” generation. Roger Federer, again is our Mr Nice guy who has no weakness against a fiery sex symbol in Rafael Nadal who plays every point as if it’s his last. 

It brings us to the eternal question…..Is he the greatest ever tennis player? Like football has the great Maradona vs Pele debate, tennis now has a pool of a few to choose from. Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are just some of the names that always come up. Borg left on such a high and nobody got to see whether he had the prowess to come back after going on an inevtible downward slide like all tennis greats. Sampras never really had the fan base for anybody to go “wow” about him. Federer on the other hand now has finally won his first Grand Slam on Clay .Winning in straight sets against Robin Sodderling of Sweden thus becoming only the 6th male ever to win all 4 grand slams. Is he the greatest ever though?

The debate will always continue I suppose, even when he over-takes Sampras to win his 15th grand slam and becomes the only male ever to do so.

Records are made to be broken, and history is always in the making. With Federer it seems like just another day at the office……

Leave your thoughts

Jordiboy

Adidas Originals Ivan Lendl Competition IL Comp Leather Retro Trainers £44.99

Adidas Originals Ivan Lendl Competition IL Comp Leather Retro Trainers - Mens - 376871 - £44.99

Online now at Retro Killer Clothing

http://www.retrokillerclothing.com/

Lots of tennis matches since 1959 to now.

http://www.tennislifedvd.org

Ivan Lendl, who left the pro tour in the mid-’90s with a bad back, is now obessesd with a different game golf. An eight-time Grand Slam event champions life revolves around the smaller-ball sport, and he has won several celebrity tournaments. The 48-year-old hopes to participate on the senior tour after he turns 50. For now, however, he plays more casually with fellow retired tennis players Jimmy Arias and Petr Korda. Three of Lendl’s five daughters are competitive golfers, and Lendl does whatever he can to help their athletic careers, from driving them to tournaments to overseeing their fitness regimen. Lendl’s oldest daughter, Marika is a freshman on University of Central Florida’s golf team.

Os traspaso info de Wikipedia sobre este gran jugador:

Biografía

 Nació el 7 de marzo de 1960 en Ostrava, República Checa, en el seno de una familia de tenistas. Su madre llegó a ser la tenista Nº2 de su país. Lendl se convirtió en profesional en 1978. Se mudó a los Estados Unidos en 1986 luego de haber sido amenazado públicamente por la asociación de tenis de su país de no dejarlo viajar a participar en torneos en el exterior, por haber participado en el torneo de Sun City, Sudáfrica. En 1992 se convirtió en ciudadano norteamericano. 

Se casó en 1989 con Samantha Frenkel y tuvieron 5 hijas. Lendl se dedicó a jugar al golf luego de su retiro y a ayudar a sus hijas en el deporte de los greens y búnkers. Sus hijas demostraron un gran potencial para triunfar en el mundo profesional del golf.

Carrera

 Lendl alcanzó notoriedad a temprana edad. En 1978 conquistó los títulos juniors de Roland Garros y Wimbledon y alcanzó la posición de Nº1, algo que lograría luego como profesional. Alcanzó la posición número 1 del escalafón mundial el 28 de febrero de 1983, y sólo la perdió en algunas ocasiones, hasta finalmente dejarla en 1990. Se mantuvo un total de 270 semanas en el escalafón, sobrepasando la marca de Jimmy Connors, y superado tan sólo por su propio protegido, Pete Sampras. Ivan Lendl ganó 94 títulos en individuales durante su carrera, y llegó 19 veces a la final de los torneos de Grand Slam, incluyendo ocho finales en el Abierto de los Estados Unidos, desde 1982 hasta 1989. Ganó este torneo tres veces (1985, 1986 y 1987, el Abierto de Francia tres veces (1984, 1986 y 1987) y el Abierto de Australia dos veces (1989 y 1990). Algo que nunca pudo conseguir es ganar el Campeonato de Wimbledon, y por lo tanto, nunca pudo completar un Grand Slam. Lendl había ganado la Copa Davis con Checoslovaquia en 1980, pero cuatro años más tarde se mudó a Nueva York y dejó de jugar este torneo. En 1992 se convirtió en ciudadano de los Estados Unidos. Se dice que una de las razones de su éxito se deba a la superficie utilizada en las canchas del “Flushing Meadows Park”. Los trabajadores que cada año preparan la superficie son los mismos que lo hacen en la casa de Lendl en Long Island. De esta forma, Lendl obtiene una copia exacta en su propia cancha. Después de haber finalizado su carrera en el tenis en 1994, se dedicó a jugar al golf, teniendo un handicap de 0. En el 2004 organizó una competencia de caridad llamada “Ivan Lendl Celebrity Golf Tournament”. 

La actitud profesional de Lendl, su moderno estilo de juego, sus métodos de entrenamiento científicos y su éxito sin precedentes a largo plazo han producido un impacto considerable en el tenis mundial de hoy. Una cita típica de Lendl es: “Si no practicara de la forma en que lo hago, entonces no jugaría de la manera que sé que puedo hacerlo.”

Fijaros ahora en este sobrerbio pelotazo que le da a un no menos soberbio McEnroe, pero sobre todo la indiferencia posterior de Lendl…¡Eso es sangre fría!!!

Un revés excepcional, absolutamente ganador, y con el gran Boris al resto!!!!

Y para calentarle más aún las pelotillas a McEnroe, fijaros qúe saque y la cara de éste…Raqueta estrellada en el vestuario seguro!!!!

This discussion is very active due to the fact that we have Mr. Federer potentially high up on that list. I think it is no point in trying to determine this. There is not one stat or result or achievement in the time period 1900-2007 which can rank one above the other. Is Laver the best, is Sampras the best, is Tilden the best, is Federer actually better than all of the above?

My initial thought is that it is impossible to compare two players from different eras. I claim that it is harder to achieve a 1st spot on the ranking today than it was 20-30 years ago. It is harder to win slams, and it’s harder to reach the ATP level. If you rank players from achievements one needs to consider this. If Federer wins all four slams in one calendar year, it is a greater achievement than Laver’s. In this pro environment, tennis is not a hobby anymore, it’s one of the toughest sports to succeed in. I am not saying that Laver gets to much credit, but it is important to separate different eras. In my opinion, the stat that should weigh the most is W-L ratio, % of tournaments won of those entered, Grand Slam W-L ration (as we now this is a priority in any time age)….

It’s hard to compare Laver and Federer for one more reason. Ranking is a necessary evil to separate the best from the 2nd best. Laver did not have to focus too much on every single tournament. Like I’ve said, even though people would disagree a lot, tennis was more hobby-like than it is today.(Which is true of many other sports as well).
I am going to try to compare those who have had a significant impact on tennis from 1968.
I will use the list on http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/legends/default.asp called legends.

Agassi: Won 76% of matches, won 60 titles between 86-06, 8 slams and all four
Ashe: won 76.83%, 33 titles last one in 78, 3 slams not in FO
Becker: 76.91%, 49 titles (1984-1999), 6 slams not in FO
Borg: 82.6%, 96 titles (61 ATP) (1973-1981), 11 slams not in AO & USO (uso final 4 times!!!)
Connors: 81.8%, 138 titles (109 ATP)(1975-1995), 8 slams, no FO
Edberg: 74.9%, 42 titles (83-96), 6 slams, not in FO(1 final)
Laver: 79.8%, 39 titles, 11 slams, won all four in 62 and 69
Lendl: 81.8%, 94 titles, 8 slams, not in Wimbledon (twice in final)
McEnroe: 81.8%, 98 titles (76 ATP), 7 slams, not in AO and Wimbledon
Nastase: 72.6%, 88 titles (53ATP), 2 slams, no record in AO, no Wimbledon (2 finals)
Newcombe: 75.9%, 68 titles (32 ATP), 5 slams, not in FO
Rafter: 65.2%!!, 11 titles!, 2 slams, only USO
Roche: 67.33%, 7 titles!, 1 slam in France
Rosewall, 74.7%, 121 titles, 8 slams, not in Wimbledon but 4 finals there!
Sampras: 77.4%, 64 titles (only ATP), 14 slams, not in France
Stan Smith: no % found, 35 titles, 2 slams
Bill Tilden: won a lot!
Vilas: 76.5%, 62 titles, 4 slams, not in Wimbledon
Wilander: 72%, 33 titles, 7 titles, no Wimbledon

Roger Federer: 80.4% (this will rise!), 51 titles (also up), 12 slams (up, up and up)

OK! I think there are a few who stand out in terms of dominating a period of time and winning a lot. The play on the court is also considered.
Bjorn Borg (was unbeatable in W and FO the few years he played, won a lot elsewhere too)
Jimmy Connors (incredible stats and won very very much! long career still over 80% ratio!)
Rod Laver (very dominant, especially in the slams)
Ivan Lendl (long career, a lot of wins)
McEnroe (over 80%, touch competition with Lendl, Connors, Edberg, Wilander+++)
Sampras (dominated the 90s. Would have been even more dominant without Agassi around)
Federer (has dominated the 00s so far, more so than Sampras did in the 90s, will probablt continue to dominate till 2010 and maybe even after that.)

There you have it! All of these could in one way or the other be claimed as the Greatest of all time. I think that Impressive stats from ATP era 1968- should be rewarded slightly more. The conclusion in 2015 I think will be that Federer could well be the Greatest Ever.

 And I forgot! The stats on winning streaks are just as important. Federer got to 41 or something before Canas took him down in California. Villas has 46! Lendl has 44, Borg 43, McEnroe 42, Muster! 35, Sampras 29, Agassi 26, Rafael Nadal 26.
Laver and the old guys are certainly not included here as this is only open era.