Tag: Wimbledon

The Intriguing Djokovic-Federer Rivalry

By Owen Lewis

Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are two of the greatest tennis players of all time. They have 37 major titles between them, and their prolific rivalry is second on the men’s side in terms of volume of matches (Djokovic and Rafael Nadal have played more).

They weave fascinating patterns when playing, with Federer often trying to work his way to the net and using his slice to keep Djokovic off balance, while Djokovic attempts to attack Federer’s weaker backhand wing and engage in sapping baseline rallies. The latter strategy has proved to be slightly more successful, as Djokovic leads the rivalry 27-23.

Behind these numbers lie extremely close contests and remarkable statistics. Djokovic leads their rivalry in majors 11-6, and has won three matches from double match point down, including the 2019 Wimbledon final. Federer won four of their first five meetings on the biggest stage, but since then the story of the rivalry in majors has been Djokovic claiming the biggest points and the matches.

Federer, despite earning more break point chances, has actually broken less often than Djokovic when they clash in a major. Djokovic has made the most of more of his opportunities, as he did at the 2015 U.S. Open final: converting six of 13 break points to Federer’s four of 23.

Though Federer is more than five years older than Djokovic, he has remained competitive in their matches. He has won at least a set in all but three of their meetings in majors, and actually leads the rivalry in best-of-three contests: 17-16.

The rivalry is very close across all three surfaces. Djokovic leads 3-1 on grass and 20-18 on hard courts, and they are tied 4-4 on clay. However, Djokovic has a 13-6 edge in tournament finals. He is, as reflected by the break point statistics above, better in pressured situations than Federer, and is an excellent big match player as well.

Djokovic can execute his desired strategy in big moments more reliably and effectively than Federer. In the 2019 Wimbledon final, Djokovic won three tiebreaks, during which many baseline exchanges took place. Such patterns allow Djokovic to take control of points with his pace redirection and safe yet penetrating groundstrokes, and expose Federer’s fragile backhand.

Above: consecutive points from the crucial third-set tiebreak in Novak Djokovic’s 7-6 (5), 1-6, 7-6 (4), 4-6, 13-12 (3) win over Roger Federer in the 2019 Wimbledon final. Note the placement of Djokovic’s shots in the second point; while they are aggressive enough to take control of the point, they are relatively safe in that they’re not particularly close to the lines. Djokovic’s ability to play points in this manner has been instrumental in him dominating his recent tiebreaks with Federer.

Federer is long past his prime, while Djokovic is yet to decline as much. The latter has dominated the second phase of the rivalry, boasting a 21-10 record against Federer since the start of 2011. This is likely due to a combination of Djokovic ascending to his best form and Federer’s age-related decline, as well as Djokovic establishing his superiority on big points.

A recent trend in the rivalry is Djokovic’s winning streak in tiebreaks. He has won the last six, beginning with a tight breaker in the first set of his 2018 Paris semifinal with Federer. Djokovic saved a set point on his way to winning the tiebreak 8-6, and since has lost just 16 points in the next five breakers. In the last four, he has made zero unforced errors.

Federer’s game is higher-risk than Djokovic’s. With Djokovic refusing to make an unforced error in their tiebreaks, all the pressure falls on Federer to win points with winners or by forcing errors. At the 2020 Australian Open, Djokovic won a first-set tiebreak 7-1, with Federer striking a forehand winner to score his lone point. With Federer’s margin for error in tiebreaks being virtually nonexistent, his best hope to win sets against Djokovic is before the score gets to 6-all.

As is the case in virtually all rivalries, the winner of the first set sees their chances to win the match vastly increase. But the opening frame is much more important to Federer than it is to Djokovic. The leader in the rivalry has beaten Federer from a set down seven times, including twice in majors, while Federer has gotten the best of Djokovic after losing the first set just once: in 2014.

Even before 2011, the year in which Djokovic rose to the peak of his powers and began to turn around the rivalry, Djokovic had beaten Federer from a set down three times, including in the semifinals of the 2010 U.S. Open. Federer’s skills as a frontrunner are often spoken of, but in this matchup it’s Djokovic who is tougher to beat from a set down. Since Federer’s comeback win in the 2014 Dubai final (he won 3-6, 6-3, 6-2) seems to be something of a one-off, Federer virtually needs to take the first set in his matches with Djokovic to win the match.

With Federer standing at 38 years old and recovering from arthroscopic knee surgery, it’s unlikely that he will rebound from his deficit in the rivalry. But if he is to, he has to be very opportunistic. His challenges are more mental than physical; Federer managed to play for four hours and 56 minutes last year in the Wimbledon final, keeping the match very close. Yet he consistently loses most of the big points when he plays Djokovic, and losing the first set against him is practically a death warrant to Federer’s chances of winning the match.

As for Djokovic, if he continues to win the lion’s share of the big points against Federer, he will continue to win most of their matches. He can even afford lapses, such as the second set of the 2019 Wimbledon final, as long as he is sharp in important moments.

Thanks for reading! If you have questions or feedback, please leave a comment or tweet @tennisnation.

What Makes a Tennis Match Great?

By Owen Lewis

In the gallery of epic tennis matches lie contests of diverse length, competitiveness, and quality. The Nadal-Federer 2008 Wimbledon final is renowned for not just the eye-popping winners, but for the two rain delays that extended the match, the fact that it ended in darkness, and the historical significance. The men’s 2012 Australian Open final redefined the limits of physical endurance in tennis as Novak Djokovic overcame exhaustion and Rafael Nadal to win an impossibly attritional five-hour, 53-minute battle. The 2018 Australian Open semifinal between Simona Halep and Angelique Kerber is of legendary status for its third set, a frame of heavenly quality in which both players saved a pair of match points before Halep edged out her rival.

What do these classics have in common? The first answer that comes to mind is that they are all extremely close, with the results hinging on one or two key points. But this criterion could also apply to a match in which errors were made on every point. The quality of the tennis is crucial, not just in terms of how many winners were hit but relating to rally intensity as well. In the Halep-Kerber semifinal, there was one more unforced error than winner between the players, but such was the length and intensity of the exchanges that this stat loses a lot of weight.

Some prefer the first-strike tennis that is seen frequently at Wimbledon, while others are partial to the longer rallies that Roland-Garros gives way to, so in that sense quality can be subjective.

A strange commonality between many fantastic matches are small chokes. At first this seems ridiculous, as a choke is a dip in level, but often times a lapse from one player will spark a spirited comeback by the other. The aforementioned 2008 Wimbledon final and 2012 Australian Open final both featured mini-chokes by the eventual winner that greatly increased the overall quality of the match. In the former, Nadal led two sets to one and 5-2 in the fourth-set tiebreak but made consecutive errors on serve, allowing Federer to get a foothold in the breaker. While the two points were lost on unforced mistakes, it lengthened the tiebreak, allowing the Center Court crowd to witness perhaps the finest ever back-to-back passing shots a few minutes later, as well as an absorbing fifth set. Djokovic led the 2012 final in Melbourne two sets to one and held a 5-3 advantage in the tiebreak, but made three forehand unforced errors that helped Nadal win the fourth set. A minor choke, yes, yet it allowed an 80-minute fifth set that made the match the longest major final ever. The Halep-Kerber semifinal saw both players make an unforced error on match point in a game that they would end up losing, but this contributed to the drama and the length of the third set. Naomi Osaka and Petra Kvitová clashed for possession of the 2019 Australian Open title, and Osaka had three championship points in the second set, yet couldn’t take any, failed to serve out the match, and lost the frame. Yet she rebounded to win the third, thereby making the final an example of her mental fortitude.

Another feature of great contests is a simultaneously high level of play from the participants. The 2019 Wimbledon final between Djokovic and Federer saw Djokovic lapse significantly in the second and fourth sets, while Federer was unable to find his best level in the three tiebreaks that took place during the final. While there was some high-quality play from both, the unevenly strong tennis was significant enough that this match is generally not considered one of the best ever, though it did take nearly five hours to crown a winner.

Most matches heralded as the best ever contain at least one legend of the game, often two. This is partly because the strongest players are the most capable of producing high-quality tennis, and partly because matches with lower-ranked players get less attention from fans and pundits. Yet having two all-time greats isn’t a requirement for a spectacle. Fernando Verdasco, an ATP player that has never made it inside the top five, took part in one of the finest matches ever, a 2009 Australian Open semifinal with Nadal (Nadal’s presence in many of the best men’s contests deserves a mention, his capacity to play epic matches is probably unparalleled on the ATP). Verdasco went for broke from the outset, clocking 95 winners across a five-hour, 14-minute battle that saw several amazing rallies (he would end up losing 6-4 in the fifth. The performance was likely his finest). Anyone can take part in an epic; it depends on level of play, not status.

The atmosphere and crowd at a match can contribute to its place in the history books. While both are unrelated to the forehands and backhands struck by the athletes, crowd support can energize a player. The 2001 Wimbledon final between Pat Rafter and Goran Ivanišević is known as “People’s Monday”. An excellent match in its own right, the final was bolstered by the buzzing crowd, many of them Croatian or Australian and ecstatic to see their man in the Wimbledon final. The five-set battle is also remembered for Ivanišević’s improbable triumph; he entered the tournament courtesy of a wild card and was ranked outside the top 100.

A great tennis match defines a variety of contests, and has many criteria, yet failing to meet one or two doesn’t often disqualify a match from being great. There have been epics of myriad types in the past, and there will surely be many more in the future.

Thanks for reading! If you have questions or feedback, please leave a comment or tweet @tennisnation.

The Unique Charm of Each Major Tournament

By Owen Lewis

The tennis season encapsulates tournaments of diverse location, prestige, and court speed, but the most well-known events are undoubtedly the four majors, or Grand Slams, scattered across the calendar. Each is worth more points than any non-major event (2000 points), and features a lengthened best-of-five format on the men’s side, but the similarities between the slams end there. The majors feature distinct personalities; over the many decades that they have been played each has cultivated a detailed image. From the air of sophistication at Wimbledon to the boisterous, celebrity-pockmarked crowd at the U.S. Open, the majors are four siblings with different appearances and substances.

The Australian Open

The first major of the year, the Australian Open, takes place in Melbourne Park, a network of courts near the city for which it is named. Scorching temperatures are reached during many editions of the tournament, even during the night matches under the lights of Rod Laver Arena, the show court named for the great Australian. Laver achieved the calendar Grand Slam (the name can now be applied to the majors, but its original meaning was winning all four majors in the same year) twice, lifting him to legendary status. He can be seen at the Australian Open every year.

The 2020 tournament (literally) had a dark cloud above the courts. Australia was ravaged by bushfires early this year, and the air quality was deemed by experts to be unsafe for periods in January. Still, the qualifying rounds preceded without an appropriately long delay, resulting in casualties of the smoky air such as Dalila Jakupovic (read my piece on the fiasco here).

Still, the Australian Open is called the “Happy Slam” for a reason. As it’s early in the year (taking place from mid-January to early February), it often features a full and healthy draw of the world’s best players. Some of the best matches in recent and all history have taken place on Rod Laver Arena, like the Simona Halep-Angelique Kerber semifinal in 2018 (both players saved match points before Halep won the match 9-7 in the third. Watch highlights here). Wild momentum swings can occur — at this year’s tournament, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, who now own a combined 14 Australian Open titles (Djokovic has eight, Federer has six), played in the semifinals. Federer got off to a fast start, taking a 4-1 lead in the first set and earning a love-40 advantage in Djokovic’s service game. Thirty-five minutes later, Djokovic led 6-1 in the tiebreak that he had forced by saving all three break points, holding from love-30 down at 2-5, and breaking Federer to love, getting back on serve.

As Federer prepared to serve at 1-6 down in the first set tiebreak, the camera panned over the court from an aerial angle, reducing the gladiators to specks on the vibrant blue court which stood out against the purple and yellow glow of the sunset. It seemed that Federer’s lead had slipped away faster than the day itself, and that his chances of winning were fading as the light left the evening, as if it were Djokovic himself pulling the sun below the horizon. Djokovic hammered home this perception by meeting Federer’s first serve with a powerful backhand return, sending the ball screaming down the line for a winner. Djokovic went on to close out the match 7-6 (1), 6-4, 6-3 as the pink and violet sky gave way to the inky darkness of night, and would win the final two nights later to win his eighth title in Melbourne.

The Australian Open has gained much prestige in the last half century. Many greats of the 1980s and even 90s skipped it in favor of rest, training, or other tournaments. But over time, it has caught up to the other three majors in terms of historical value and importance. After 1986, it was moved from December to January, and now sets the tone for the rest of the year. The winner of the tournament bags 2000 points, as is the case with all majors, and often enters the Sunshine Swing (the Indian Wells and Miami tournaments) as the favorite.

Roland-Garros

The second major of the year also goes by the name “The French Open”, Roland-Garros being a French fighter pilot in World War I. Between the Australian Open and this major, tournaments shift from hard courts to clay in order to prepare the tour for the slower surface. Court Philippe-Chatrier, the show court of Roland-Garros, though a roof has been installed this year, has a less enclosed feel than Rod Laver Arena. Players can take advantage of the slower pace, sliding to get in position for their shots.

Roland-Garros is the major prize that has eluded many legends of the game, and fittingly, the red clay sticks to players’ clothes, looking similar to dried blood.

Rafael Nadal has mastered Roland-Garros like no one ever has and likely ever will, winning the tournament on his first attempt in 2005 and winning 11 of the next 14 editions of the championship. Yet the Parisian crowd doesn’t always favor the King of Clay, instead throwing their support more solidly behind Federer, who won his only Roland-Garros title in 2009.

On the women’s side, players have briefly ruled the tournament, but not with the same consistency as Nadal. Justine Henin won four titles in Paris in five years (2003, 2005-2007), and Serena Williams has won Roland-Garros three times, but the women’s tournament has seen six different winners in the last six years (for context, the men’s side has had three different winners in the last six years, and just four in the last fifteen years).

Roland-Garros likely houses the most scarcely-believable sliding retrievals among the majors. Court Philippe-Chatrier has seen some incredible shots; in 2015, Stanislas Wawrinka directed a one-handed backhand between the net post and a box reading “IBM” (one of the sponsors of the tournament), slotting the winner through a gap smaller than half a foot.

Patience is required to win Roland-Garros. What would be a winner at Wimbledon may be returned deep on the red clay in Paris, and point construction is key. Many rallies end with one or both players visibly tired.

Wimbledon

Wimbledon is the major most leaden with history. It is the only slam to enforce a dress code, and all athletes dress in white. Established in 1877, the tournament is probably the one that most tennis players dream of winning as children. Wimbledon has seen 15-year-old Cori Gauff take out five-time champion Venus Williams (Gauff’s senior by more than 22 years), a timeless Federer-Nadal final end in twilight and an explosion of flashbulbs, one-sided matches, and a freakish John Isner-Nicolas Mahut first-round match end 70-68 in the fifth (the extended deciding set has since been done away with, there is now a tiebreak at 12-all in the final set).

As the fans and royals eat strawberries and cream, players do battle on the meticulously trimmed grass courts of the All England Club. Center Court is the most famous at Wimbledon, though a side court, Court 2, is known as the “Graveyard of Champions”, such is its reputation for housing upsets.

Players with powerful serves are often successful at Wimbledon as grass is a faster surface than clay and most hard courts, but a serve alone is never enough to win the title. The grass has slowed in recent years, and the champions of the last few tournaments haven’t been huge servers.

Martina Navratilova has been the most successful player ever at Wimbledon, winning the event nine times. From 1982 to 1987, her serve-and-volley based game ruled the lawns. While that style is now all but extinct, players like Navratilova, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and Pete Sampras have left a permanent mark on SW19. And serve-and-volley appears more at Wimbledon than at the other majors.

Silence typically falls on Center Court as a player goes into their service motion. The crowds have a reputation for being well-behaved (though many feel otherwise after they exhibited fierce support of Federer over Djokovic in last year’s final). But as the server bounces the ball, the sound echoes around Center Court, followed by the noises of effort and ballstriking during the points, as if the venue is soaking up the history and significance of each shot.

The U.S. Open

In many ways, the United States Open is a foil to Wimbledon. The crowd is more boisterous; far more excited yells will fill the air during a good rally in Flushing Meadows than at other slams. The celebrities that populate the audience get at least as much attention from the cameras as the Royal Box does at SW19.

The crowd unsurprisingly loves American players over all others, but they have adopted others too, a notable example being Juan Martín del Potro of Argentina. Fans showered him with adoration as he pulled off a stunning upset of Federer to win the 2009 U.S. Open, and have kept their support behind him ever since. They have been given reason to cheer despite del Potro’s nagging wrist injuries — he executed the kind of comeback that couldn’t have been scripted any better on paper over Dominic Thiem in the fourth round of the 2017 tournament. The crowd erupted after each of del Potro’s missile-like forehand winners, helping propel the Argentinean to an improbable win from two sets down.

The fans at the U.S. Open play a big part in matches. They form grudges, as they did against Djokovic during a controversial on-court interview he had after beating crowd favorite Andy Roddick. Though Djokovic has since won the tournament three times, the fans haven’t completely come around on him yet.

Boos can pour from Arthur Ashe Stadium at any time — many fans will make their displeasure known when an athlete stops play to argue with the umpire, even if they don’t know the reason for the argument.

The U.S. Open has an air of unpredictability. The top players have had plenty of success there, but in 2015 Serena Williams, who was on the cusp of completing a calendar Grand Slam, shockingly lost to the unseeded Roberta Vinci in the semifinals. It was among the biggest upsets in tennis history. On the men’s side, since Federer won the last of his five consecutive titles in 2008, no one has been able to defend their title. The positioning of the U.S. Open in the calendar means that many players are worn out or injured by the time the tournament begins, so some years the fortnight can be flat, but other years the exciting atmosphere is supplemented by huge upsets and quality matches.

While the majors are extremely different, not just in venue but in crowd personality and atmosphere, they are collectively the height of excellence in tennis. Each has been the setting for moments and matches that are etched into the minds of fans around the world, and the tournaments will continue to watch as players make history.

Thanks for reading! If you have any questions or feedback, feel free to leave a comment or tweet @tennisnation. Be safe!

6500 Words On The G.O.A.T. Debate

By Owen Lewis

Perhaps the most-talked about aspect of tennis is the debate over which member of the Big Three will be crowned the greatest male tennis player of all time. Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal are battling for eternal glory; their résumés are distinctly different and similar at the same time, and it’s been a question for a while now of whose claim is the best. I’m going to analyze their greatest accomplishments and compare them, as it stands on May 8th, 2020.

Rafael Nadal

Nadal has won 19 majors, second among the legendary trio. An astounding 12 French Open titles belong to the Spaniard; he shattered the previous men’s record of six, held by Björn Borg, in 2012, and broke Margaret Court’s record of 11 titles at a single major in 2019. He has won at least two slams on each surface (2 on grass, 5 on hard court, and 12 on clay), owns 35 Masters 1000 titles (a men’s record), and is the only member of the Big Three to have won an Olympic gold medal in singles (he beat Djokovic in the semifinals at the 2008 Beijing Olympics).

He leads his head-to-head with Federer 24-16, and 10-4 in majors, and while he trails Djokovic 26-29 he has won 9 of their 15 meetings in slams. Combined, he emerged victorious in 19 of his 29 matches in majors against the other two, by far the best record of the trio.

Nadal has the best winning percentage in majors of the trio (and of every active male player).

Nadal has defended his French Open title nine times, more times than either Djokovic or Federer have won a single major.

From 2005 to 2014, Nadal went 18-5 in major meetings against Federer and Djokovic. He is the only member of the Big Three to have won three slams on three different surfaces in the same calendar year.

Nadal is the only male player ever to win hard court, grass court, and clay court majors in the same calendar year (in 2010, he won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open back-to-back-to-back).

Nadal has won the Davis Cup (a team event in which players play for their country) a world record five times, while Federer and Djokovic have each won it a single time.

In his career, Nadal has lost just twice at the French Open, out of 14 complete appearances (he pulled out with injury in 2016). For reference, Federer has lost 13 times at Wimbledon, his most successful major, and Djokovic has fallen eight times at the Australian Open. Nadal won the French Open on his first attempt, and did not lose in Paris until his fifth tournament in 2009.

Nadal has beaten at least one of Federer or Djokovic on his way to winning 13 majors (out of 19 total).

Nadal’s biggest winning streak on clay stands at a mighty 81 matches.

From after Wimbledon in 2007 to before the 2017 Australian Open, Nadal won all six of his major matches with Federer (three at the Australian Open, one at Wimbledon, and two at the French Open). Despite grass being the surface on which he has had the least success, he dethroned Federer, who had won the tournament the last five years, in the final of Wimbledon in 2008.

Nadal has won majors in his teens, 20s, and 30s.

Nadal entered the top 10 as an eighteen-year-old in 2005, and has retained a spot in the top 10 ever since — 778 weeks (almost 15 years).

In 2013, Nadal won two Masters 1000 titles on clay, the French Open, two Masters 1000 titles on hard court, and the U.S. Open. Federer and Djokovic have never done this, and neither has anyone in the Open Era.

Nadal has a better appearance-to-final berth ratio in majors off of clay than Djokovic or Federer have on clay (Nadal makes 34.9% of nonclay slam finals, Djokovic makes the French Open final 26.7% of the time and Federer makes the French Open final 27.8% of the time), and a better appearance-to-final berth ratio at the French Open than Djokovic or Federer have at the other majors combined (80% for Nadal on clay, Djokovic makes 48.8% of nonclay major finals and Federer makes 44.1%)

Nadal has made multiple major finals in ten different seasons (2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2019). Federer has made more than one major final in nine seasons (2004-2010, 2015, and 2017), while Djokovic has accomplished the feat eight times (2011-2016, 2018, and 2019).

Nadal is 29-13 when facing a top-5 player at a major (a 69.1% winning percentage). Djokovic is 31-20 (winning 60.8% of the time), and Federer is 29-26 (52.7% winning percentage).

Nadal has a 2-1 record against Djokovic at the U.S. Open, despite hard courts being Djokovic’s best surface.

Nadal has beaten both Federer and Djokovic at the same major three times (the French Open in 2006, 2007, and 2008). Djokovic has beaten Nadal and Federer at the same major once (the 2011 U.S. Open), and Federer has never topped the other two at the same slam.

He has won at least one major and one Masters 1000 title every year from 2005 to 2014, the longest streak owned by any Big Three member.

Nadal is 31-9 in matches against Djokovic and Federer on clay.

Nadal has achieved the rare “Channel Double”, the feat of winning the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back, twice (in 2008 and 2010). Federer has done it once, in 2009, and Djokovic has never accomplished this.

Finally, Nadal won the 2009 Australian Open by playing a five-hour, 14-minute semifinal followed by a four-hour, 23-minute final, with one day’s rest in between (he beat Federer in the final).

Roger Federer

Federer has won 20 majors, more than Nadal, Djokovic, and every other man in history.

Federer is the oldest man to win a major and Masters 1000 in the Open Era.

Federer has won multiple majors without losing a set, including Wimbledon in 2017 when he was 35 years old.

At the French Open in 2011, Federer defeated Djokovic in a four-set semifinal. The Serb had been undefeated that year; Federer snapped his winning streak of over 40 matches.

At Hamburg in 2007, Federer beat Nadal 2-6, 6-2, 6-0, snapping the Spaniard’s 81-match winning streak on clay.

Federer is the oldest man to obtain the number one ranking in the Open Era (he was 36 when earning the mantle in early 2018)

He owns the all-time men’s record for weeks in the top spot of the rankings: 310. Nadal has 209, and Djokovic has 282. Federer has also held the number one ranking for the longest period before losing it: 237 weeks, more time than for which Nadal has been number one altogether.

Federer made 10 consecutive major finals from the 2005 Wimbledon to the 2007 U.S. Open, and another eight in a row from the 2008 French Open to the 2010 Australian Open.

He has made 36 consecutive major quarterfinals (nine years’ worth of majors).

Federer came from two sets down against Tommy Haas in the fourth round of the 2009 French Open, then beat Juan Martín del Potro from two sets to one down in the semifinals on his way to winning his only French Open title.

Federer has an Olympic silver medal in singles and a gold medal in doubles (partnered with Stan Wawrinka)

Federer has won 103 tournaments, comfortably more than Nadal’s 85 and Djokovic’s 79.

He has made 23 consecutive major semifinals.

Federer won five Wimbledon titles in a row from 2003-2007, and five U.S. Open titles from 2004-2008.

He is the only member of the Big Three to have at least five titles at three different majors (he has five U.S. Open titles, eight Wimbledon titles, and six Australian Open titles).

Federer has been in the top 2 at least once a year from 2003-2018 (age 21-36).

He is the only player in the trio to have successfully defended a U.S. Open title (he has done it four times. Djokovic and Nadal have never done it).

At Wimbledon and the Australian Open, Federer has at least 100 career wins. Neither Nadal or Djokovic have 100 wins at a slam.

Federer won 11 of the 16 majors contested from 2004 to 2007.

In 2009, Federer made all four slam finals, winning two and losing two (both in five sets, and both by 2-6 scores. He lost to Nadal at the Australian Open and lost to Juan Martin del Potro at the U.S. Open).

Federer has a men’s Open Era record of eight Wimbledon titles.

Federer has 103 career titles, more than Nadal (85) and Djokovic (79).

Federer defeated four top-10 players, including Nadal, to win the 2017 Australian Open.

Federer has won a men’s record of six ATP Finals, and missed out on the semifinals just once in 17 appearances.

He made seven consecutive Wimbledon finals from 2003-2009. No one else has been able to do this at any major since before 2000.

Novak Djokovic

He won four consecutive majors from Wimbledon in 2015 to the 2016 French Open. No man has accomplished this since Rod Laver.

Djokovic has completed the Career Grand Slam, winning each of the four majors.

He leads both rivalries with the other Big Three members: 26-22 against Federer and 29-26 against Nadal.

Since after the 2009 Mutua Madrid Open, Djokovic is 25-12 against Nadal and 23-15 against Federer, for a combined record of 48-27.

Djokovic has beaten Federer in majors 11 times, more than any other player (for reference: Nadal has 10 wins against Federer in slams).

Djokovic won 7 of the 10 Australian Open tournaments played from 2011-2020.

From 2014 to 2019, Djokovic won four of six Wimbledon tournaments.

Djokovic won 30 straight matches in majors from Wimbledon 2015 to Wimbledon 2016 (more than Federer, Nadal, and any man in the Open Era have ever accumulated)

Djokovic won 6 Masters 1000 titles in 2015, the only man to do so in the Open Era.

Djokovic recorded 31 wins over top-10 players in 2015, a season widely accepted as the best and most decorated by a man in the Open Era

Djokovic has saved match points against Federer on his way to winning the contest in majors three times (the 2010 and 2011 U.S. Open semifinals, and the 2019 Wimbledon final).

He has beaten a fellow Big Three member on the way to winning 13 of his 17 majors.

Djokovic has the highest Elo ranking, meaning he’s faced the toughest competition in his career.

Against the top 10, Djokovic has won 68% of his matches compared to Federer’s 64% and Nadal’s 65%.

Djokovic has made at least four finals at each major.

In 2011, Djokovic began the year with 43 consecutive wins.

Djokovic beat Nadal in all six of their meetings (each match was in the final of a tournament) in 2011, defeating the Spaniard to win Indian Wells, the Miami Open, the Madrid Open, Rome, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open. His dominance of Nadal in 2011 spanned over all three surfaces.

Djokovic owns all nine masters 1000 titles; neither Federer nor Nadal have the full set.

Out of four meetings with Federer at the Swiss’s best major, Wimbledon, Djokovic has won three and lost one (the only non-final out of the four).

From 2012 to 2015, Djokovic won the ATP Finals four times in a row.

Djokovic is one of just two men to have beaten Nadal at the French Open, winning 7-5, 6-3, 6-1 in the 2015 quarterfinals.

Djokovic is the only man to have beaten both Federer and Nadal at all four majors.

Holes in the Résumés

While the careers of the Big Three have been, in a word, astounding, their résumés do have holes, miniscule as they may be. This section analyzes the weakest parts of each player’s career: tournaments they’ve never won, ranking dips, losing streaks against each other and other players, missed opportunities, weak competition faced at times, and more.

Roger Federer

Federer, across five French Open finals, has won once and lost four times (all losses to Nadal).

He has lost out on match point opportunities in majors five times in majors. Three losses were to Djokovic, with a combined six match points lost (four on serve and two against serve).

Federer at one point trailed Nadal 23-10 in their head-to-head rivalry.

He has beaten Nadal or Djokovic on the way to winning just seven of his 20 majors.

Federer has a losing record in finals on clay.

In majors against Nadal and Djokovic, his record stands at 10-21. Both of the others have won over half of their Big Three major encounters.

Federer has failed to convert an optimal percentage of break points in several important matches. Notable examples include his 2007 French Open final (a four-set loss to Nadal in which 1/17 break points were taken), the 2015 U.S. Open final (a four-set loss to Djokovic in which he converted 4/23 break points), and more recently his Round of 16 loss to Stefanos Tsitsipas, where Federer produced 12 break points and was unable to break a single time.

Despite having won as many sets as Djokovic in their rivalry, Federer trails 23-27.

Federer, after winning the U.S. Open for a fifth straight time in 2008, has never won it since.

While Nadal and Djokovic are both undefeated in semifinals and finals at their best majors (Nadal is 12-0 at both stages in Paris; Djokovic is 8-0 at both stages in Melbourne), Federer has lost four times in Wimbledon finals (three to Djokovic, one to Nadal), and once in the semifinals.

Federer has never beaten Nadal at the French Open in six attempts.

Federer has not beaten Djokovic in a major since Wimbledon in 2012 (they have played six times in slams since then).

He has lost in majors twice from both two sets up and match point up (one of the losses was to Djokovic).

Federer has never beaten Nadal on the way to winning the French Open. He has played Nadal in four finals and two semifinals there.

Federer has never won Rome or Monte-Carlo, one of the nine Masters 1000 tournaments (he won Hamburg, a clay tournament that no longer exists, four times, and the former Madrid tournament on indoor hard once). Still, the gaps in his Masters 1000 collection indicate an overall lower level on clay than Djokovic (along with the Serb’s greater success against Nadal at the French Open).

Novak Djokovic

Djokovic is 3-5 in U.S. Open finals, which is on hard court (his best surface).

He is 1-4 in French Open finals.

Unlike Federer and Nadal, Djokovic has never won a major without dropping a set.

Djokovic dropped to 22nd in the world in 2018 after injuries in 2017 and the beginning of 2018 as well as dips in form.

From the 2012 French Open to the 2014 French Open, Djokovic made six major finals and lost five of them (the sole win was at the 2013 Australian Open).

Djokovic does not have an Olympic gold medal in singles (2008: lost to Nadal in the semifinals).

He has lost six times to Nadal at the French Open, and failed to win the tournament the one year he did manage to beat the Spaniard.

Rafael Nadal

Nadal has lost 19 sets in a row to Djokovic on hard court.

Nadal has never won the ATP Finals, the year-end 1500-point tournament that the year’s top eight players qualify for, despite qualifying every year since 2005.

In five appearances in the final of the Miami Open, Nadal is winless (in 2005, he fell to Federer after leading by two sets and a break when the format was best-of-five. He lost to Djokovic in 2011 and 2014 and to Federer in 2017).

He has never won the Rolex Paris Masters, another Masters 1000 tournament, or Shanghai, a third Masters 1000.

Nadal hasn’t won the Australian Open since 2009 and won his last Wimbledon title in 2010.

From 2012 to 2015, Nadal recorded four early-round losses at Wimbledon to players outside the top 100 (Lukas Rosol, Steve Darcis, Nick Kyrgios, and Dustin Brown).

Nadal has lost six of his last seven matches against Federer.

Nadal has lost both of his matches against Djokovic at the Australian Open.

He is 1-4 in Australian Open finals (two losses to Djokovic and one to Federer), losing from a break up in the fifth set to Djokovic in 2012 and to Federer in 2017.

Miscellaneous Observations

Federer won four majors before playing Nadal in a major for the first time, and won nine before facing Djokovic at a slam. He led his rivalry with Djokovic early on, and now trails 27-23. Some believe that this is because Federer’s age has begun to play a factor, and this may be true, but any disadvantage that his age presents now is balanced by his privilege of playing for several years before meeting Nadal or Djokovic at a slam.

Federer is 20-11 in major finals (10 of the 11 losses are to Nadal or Djokovic), Nadal is 19-8 in major finals (seven of the eight losses are to Federer or Djokovic), and Djokovic is 17-9 in major finals (five of the nine losses are to Federer or Nadal).

Nadal and Djokovic are cut from the same cloth, while Federer’s game is extremely different from his rivals’. The Swiss’s style is aggressive, based around his serve and first strike. He comes to net more than the other two. Djokovic and Nadal are baseliners. They are probably the two hardest men to hit through, such is the strength of their defense. Their serves aren’t prolific in producing aces (Nadal’s is less so than Djokovic’s), and when it comes to long points, they will dominate. They are both exceptional under pressure, and have both beaten Federer in big matches by winning the most important points, if not the most points overall. It’s an interesting way to look at tennis history; Federer ruled with a brand of attacking tennis for a while, then was displaced by a pair of grinders with amazing groundstrokes and no obvious weaknesses to attack in their games (Federer’s would be his one-handed backhand) who seem not to feel pressure much of the time.

Nadal has the best rate of victory in slam finals (70.4%), Djokovic is second at 68% even, and Federer has the worst winning percentage in major finals (64.5%).

Against Andy Murray, the fourth-best player of the generation, Djokovic is 25-11, Nadal is 17-7, and Federer is 14-11.

Djokovic has played, and won, many important matches with the crowd almost fully against him. Some notable examples are the 2019 Wimbledon final and the 2015 U.S. Open final.

The Case for Djokovic (based on his career so far)

Djokovic has won 15 slams in the last decade, more than any other man. He came to power when Federer and Nadal were dominating tennis, and rebounded from huge deficits in each rivalry. He’s beaten Federer at Wimbledon three times, all in finals, and out-grinded Nadal in a five-hour, 53-minute slugfest at the Australian Open, showing he can match and exceed his biggest rivals in brutal matches. He’s only lost one five-setter to Nadal, and none to Federer, while beating them in a combined six. In the clutch, he’s gotten the better of Federer time and again; he’s saved match points against one of the best ever in the biggest matches multiple times.

His return is the best in history, as is his backhand, and his game is the most well-balanced of the three, reflected by his Golden Masters accomplishment. At all four majors, he’s gotten the best of Federer and Nadal. He’s arguably the best hard court player of all time and if he wins a couple more Wimbledon titles, has a solid claim to being the best-ever grass courter as well. And he’s not too shabby on clay; he’s one of just two men to beat Nadal at the French Open and has beaten Nadal on the dirt seven times, more than anyone else. Djokovic has almost as many weeks at #1 as Federer and looks to be in a good position to catch him once the tour resumes. Finally, he won four majors in a row from the 2015 Wimbledon to the 2016 French Open, which hasn’t been done since Rod Laver won the calendar slam in 1969. Since 2011, he’s simply been better than both Federer and Nadal in most of their meetings.

The Case Against Djokovic

He doesn’t lead any of the most important stats — majors, weeks at #1, Masters 1000 titles, or overall tournaments. He trails Nadal and Federer in majors, and lacks an Olympic gold medal. He’s lost nine of his fifteen matches in majors against Nadal. He’s lost five major finals to Wawrinka or Murray, and has a poor conversion rate in U.S. Open finals (3-5), a tournament on his best surface. Federer has as many majors on hard court/clay and three more on grass, while Nadal is stronger at the French Open than he is at the Australian.

The Case for Federer (based on his career so far)

Federer has 20 majors, 310 weeks in the top spot of the rankings, and has won 103 tournaments. All three of these stats are records among the Big Three, and the major tally and weeks at number one are all-time men’s records. He’s the most decorated men’s player in history, and therefore the best. At his peak, he was better than Djokovic in their rivalry. He transcended age to win the Australian Open in 2017, beating four top-10 players including the man who’s inflicted heartbreak upon heartbreak on him, Nadal. He’s beaten Djokovic at all four majors. He dominated the tour for a solid four and a half years, beating old legends like Andre Agassi as well as the young stars of his generation. Even after his most successful years, he was able to beat Djokovic at the French Open in 2011 and at Wimbledon in 2012. Murray’s only beaten him once in a major.

His serve is one of the best among the non-giants of the tour; he gives away nothing about the location. It’s precise and packs a decent punch. Some consider his forehand to be the best ever, and even the best shot ever, and while that’s debatable, it’s an incredibly powerful and reliable shot at its best. His volleys are smooth and his overhead backhand draws gasps whenever he hits it.

He’s won five or more titles at Wimbledon, the Australian Open, and the U.S. Open, as well as a title in Paris and four runner-up plates. His name is at the top of most of the leaderboards.

The Case Against Federer

For much of his career, he hasn’t been as good as his two main rivals. He’s won less than a third of his most important matches against them (10/31), and they’ve both beaten him at Wimbledon, his best slam. Meanwhile, he’s beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open, but that was before the Serb won his first title there, and he’s not been close to defeating Nadal in Paris. While Nadal and Djokovic won 13 and 15 majors, respectively, in the 2010s, Federer won just five, despite beginning the decade as the world No. 1.

He’s the worst under pressure out of the three, as reflected in the 2007 French Open final (1/17 on break points against Nadal) and the 2015 U.S. Open (4/23 on break points against Djokovic). In the 2006 Rome final, his best chance at beating Nadal in a best-of-five match on clay (which he’s never done), he made two unforced errors on his only two match points. He’s missed out on six match points in majors against Djokovic, two of which were championship points at Wimbledon. Nadal and Djokovic are better at taking their chances.

Federer has played for years longer than Nadal and Djokovic, and still trails them in Masters 1000 titles by a considerable distance (he has 28, Djokovic has 34, and Nadal has a men’s record of 35. He’s never won Monte-Carlo or Rome, leaving a significant gap in his clay-court accomplishments.

His success at majors came to a grinding halt as Nadal and Djokovic reached their primes, suggesting that the other two are better players. He won many of his majors without having to contend with either of them, instead feasting on Lleyton Hewitt, a post-prime Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, and Mark Philippoussis. Nadal and Djokovic had to battle each other, Federer, and the stronger players of the more recent generation to win their majors (such as Murray and Wawrinka), so their slams carry more historical weight. Federer was the third-best player of the highest-level era in modern men’s tennis.

The Case for Nadal (based on his career so far)

Nadal’s the greatest clay court player ever; that’s essentially impossible to contradict. Beating Nadal on clay is the toughest task in men’s tennis, because Nadal at his best on clay is the highest level in men’s tennis.

He beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, when the Swiss was still in his prime (and, by his own admission, recovered from the bout of mono he suffered that year). He’s beaten Djokovic at the U.S. Open twice, and won more Flushing Meadows titles than the man many consider to be the greatest hard court player ever. His non-clay accomplishments alone rival the careers of John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. Is Nadal an all-court player? You bet.

In majors, he is 19-10 against Federer and Djokovic; he’s won a convincing majority of his most important matches with his biggest rivals. And while 12 of his wins come at the French Open, he is 4-4 against Federer at non-clay majors and 3-5 against Djokovic at non-clay majors, by far a better winning percentage than his opponents’ records against him at the French Open (Federer is 0-6, Djokovic is 1-6). He is more dominant on clay than Federer or Djokovic are on grass and hard, respectively, and he’s more accomplished on grass and hard than his rivals are on clay.

Nadal comfortably leads his head-to-head with Federer, even with the Swiss’s revamped backhand helping him win six of the last seven matches. He’s beaten Federer in three of their four hard court major matches, and didn’t lose to him at a hard court major until the 2017 Australian Open final. He might be leading his head-to-head with Djokovic as well had the pair not faced off seven times during Nadal’s biggest dip in form (2015-2016) — for reference, there were only two Djokovic-Nadal matches from 2017-June 2018, Djokovic’s worst period.

Nadal is the only one of the three to have an Olympic gold medal in singles, and he has five Davis Cup titles compared to one each for Djokovic and Federer.

The Case against Nadal

Nadal has never won the year-end ATP Finals tournament, which counts for 1500 points. Djokovic and Federer have each won it five times. He trails Djokovic 20-7 on hard courts and has lost 19 sets in a row to the Serb on cement.

Nadal has by far the fewest weeks at number one out of the three.

Out of the trio, he’s the third-best player on hard courts and grass. He is 1-4 in Australian Open finals, and has never won the Paris Masters or the Miami Open, two of the nine Masters 1000 tournaments. He also hasn’t won the Shanghai Masters (though he won indoor Madrid, the tournament that Shanghai replaced). Djokovic leads their head-to-head 29-26, and as of late Nadal has had difficulty beating both his main rivals. He hasn’t gotten the best of Federer on hard court since the 2014 Australian Open, and not since the 2013 U.S. Open has he tasted victory over Djokovic on cement, and his last grass court wins over Federer and Djokovic came in 2008.

A Note on Why the Clay Specialist Argument Makes No Sense

The “Nadal is just a clay court specialist” argument falls apart as Nadal’s success on other surfaces, including both his rivals in their primes, is revealed. He has won as many majors on grass as Federer and Djokovic have won on clay, combined. He is the only player among the Big Three to have won at least two majors on each surface, and is more surface-balanced than Djokovic and Federer in that respect.

Sergi Bruguera, who won the French Open in 1993 and 1994 and no majors off the Paris dirt, is arguably a clay specialist. Nadal is not; he has won seven majors off of clay alone.

Some say “if you take away everyone’s most successful slam, Nadal has the fewest majors”, but all that proves is that Nadal is better at the French Open than Federer at Wimbledon and Djokovic at the Australian Open. In no way should this count against Nadal in the G.O.A.T. debate.

Djokovic has won 11 of his 17 majors on hard court (64.7%), a greater majority than Nadal’s 12 clay court majors against his 19 total (63.2%). This can be defended by saying there are two hard court majors each year and a singular slam on clay, but this opens up the argument that “if there were a second major on clay, Nadal could very well have another 12 majors”. The point is that wins on hard are not more valuable or important than wins on clay. The “specialist” argument can be used against any player who’s inevitably won a majority of their majors on a single surface. Each surface counts the same, and it is pointless to raise the “if you were to take away a surface…” narrative.

So if it seems that this article is missing a section that uses the “clay specialist” argument against Nadal, this is why I did not include it. Some arguments do not have merit and as such, I have not written about them here.

A Brief Segment on Popularity

Federer and Nadal are simply more popular than Djokovic. They get more crowd support than the Serb, and have more fans worldwide. I suspect that this is because they started winning first, so the world grew a bit accustomed to seeing them dominate before Djokovic began to ascend to their status, beating them both many times along the way. His lack of popularity compared to the others may also have to do with his on-court demeanor. He smashes rackets on occasion, while Nadal has never done so and Federer hasn’t since 2009 (he was losing to Djokovic at the time). I don’t place any emphasis on popularity when it comes to the G.O.A.T. debate, and I don’t think it makes Djokovic any less of a great player.

What Conclusions Can Be Drawn?

In this section, I’m going to do my best to provide some predictions and concrete statements about the strength of the careers of the Big Three. When I read an article about the G.O.A.T. debate, I always want to see an opinion at the end saying something more than “their claims are equally good”. I do think it’s far too early to definitively say who the greatest of all time is, but I will give some opinions that will hopefully satisfy some curiosity.

Although Federer leads in majors, overall tournaments, and weeks at #1, I think that the battle for the G.O.A.T. title will come down to Nadal and Djokovic. Federer, bluntly put, is not as reliable in big moments of matches, against his rivals and against other players. He trails in both rivalries, and has lost over two-thirds of his matches in majors when playing Nadal and Djokovic. Because of this, I think that if they can equal his 20 majors, their superior big-match playing, Masters 1000 tally, and their more complete domination of their most successful major will overpower Federer’s claim.

It’s a very tough call between Nadal and Djokovic for who I think will eventually be considered the best men’s tennis player ever. The former will likely win additional Roland-Garros titles, the latter will probably win more Australian Open titles. Nadal leads in majors, Masters 1000s, the head-to-head in majors, and overall tournaments won (as well as having an Olympic gold medal), so I believe that as it stands today, his résumé is slightly better than Djokovic and his four consecutive majors won, overall head-to-head lead, amazing streak on hard courts, and status as the best player of the 2010s decade. But Nadal is farther past his prime than Djokovic is, and the Serb has won five of the last seven majors. There’s every chance that Djokovic will exceed Nadal’s major and Masters 1000 tally.

If he does so, his lead in the head-to-head and his other accomplishments could well lift him to the status of G.O.A.T.

One of the most difficult things about this debate is measuring the accomplishments of each player. As I said above, I think Federer’s résumé will be the weakest if his major tally is tied or exceeded, but this is subjective. Others may consider weeks at number one to be the most important stat, or perhaps overall tournaments won.

By the same token, it’s very hard to determine how much of a lead one player will need on another to be considered better. In the case of Federer, I think once his 20 majors are equaled, his claim is worse than that of the player who matched him (Nadal or Djokovic).

Nadal and Djokovic are, if possible, an even trickier case. When does Djokovic’s big lead in weeks at #1 come into play? Is it worth one major, two majors? Less than one? What about Nadal’s Olympic gold medal? Another reason this debate is so tough to project is that there’s the possibility that Djokovic could win gold in the future, or that Federer could win more majors, pushing his total out of reach (I do think the former possibility is more likely).

Here’s the most definitive statement I can make regarding Nadal and Djokovic: I think that if Djokovic can surpass Nadal’s haul of majors, his career will be slightly more impressive as a whole. And vice-versa, if Nadal ends with more majors I believe his career will be the best ever by a man. Their non-major stats and achievements (Masters 1000s, head-to-head leads, surface domination, etc.) are extremely close in weight. My opinion is that if they tie or exceed Federer’s 20 majors, they deserve to be considered better players.

Of course, this hypothetical as well as the one at the start of this section is next to useless, as it assumes that the only thing that will change between now and the end of the careers of the Big Three is the major tally.

But I’m trying to analyze their careers right now, and here’s what I think: majors are the most important part of the debate. This is what’s keeping Federer in the conversation. But since Nadal and Djokovic’s claims are likely as good at the moment, it won’t be much of a contest if either or both of them reach 20 majors. Djokovic and Nadal’s more impressive competition faced, domination of a single major, etc. put them on virtually equal footing with Federer, so with regards to the race for G.O.A.T., Federer has a mountain to climb.

He needs to hold on to his lead in majors to maintain a claim to be the G.O.A.T., and Nadal is one away from tying him. Djokovic is three behind, but has been the most dominant player of the past decade and has won large groups of majors in very short periods of time, as he did when completing his “Nole Slam” and when regaining supremacy in men’s tennis at the end of 2018 and the start of 2019.

I think Federer will eventually be considered the third-best player of the trio when these three great players have all retired. I believe that he has a viable claim to G.O.A.T. as it stands today, but he won’t in the future if his 20 majors are matched.

On the other hand, I think that Nadal and Djokovic will always have a strong claim, barring a large deficit in majors upon the end of their careers. For example, if the gap between them is two or less, the player with fewer majors will still have a claim, though it will be weaker.

As for a prediction between Nadal and Djokovic for who will end up as the G.O.A.T., I’m afraid I’ll have to leave it open-ended. Djokovic looks the more likely to win majors currently, but Nadal is always a (the) favorite at the French Open and has won two of the last three U.S. Open tournaments as well. And the younger players on the circuit, the NextGen, are improving constantly and may prevent the older stars from adding much more to their résumés, in which case Federer could hold on to his record of 20 majors.

There’s no doubt that this G.O.A.T. debate is among the most interesting and complex conversations ever to grace the tennis community. Fans of all three players display impressive passion, and each group has suffered heartbreak as their favorite player has fallen to one of the other two or another ATP player. Tennis is mentally taxing, not just as a player, but as a fan, and the G.O.A.T. debate can be immensely frustrating if an argument isn’t going the way one wants, or if there’s a particularly fierce disagreement. The thought of one’s favorite player not going down as the G.O.A.T. is almost too much to bear.

But even if your man doesn’t win this incredible race, it doesn’t lessen the remarkable career they’ve had. If you are positive that your favorite won’t come out on top, there’s no need to be devastated. They’re still an all-time legend. Their best moments are immortalized in your memory and on YouTube.

Go back in time. Go back, and watch Nadal overcome the limits of physical exhaustion by winning a titanic Australian Open semifinal against Verdasco (one of the best hard court matches ever), then somehow recover for the anticipated final with Federer. Watch Djokovic edge Andy Murray in the Australian Open semifinal three years later, then outlast Nadal in a mind-bending five-hour, 53-minute final that left both players struggling not to cramp during the trophy ceremony. Relive Federer’s improbable victory at the Australian Open in 2017 where he beat four top-10 players, getting the best of Nadal in the final in perhaps his most emotional victory ever.

Watch Nadal beat Federer in what’s widely considered the best match of all time at Wimbledon in 2008. Check out Djokovic beating Nadal in a 2018 semifinal at the same tournament that’s possibly the best quality match since. See the Serb’s emotion as he wins the French Open for the first time here (his fourth major in a row!). Watch Federer feel the same joy here.

Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer have given tennis fans hours upon hours of breathtaking tennis. They’ve delivered shots that made our mouths fall open, and worked their way into such pressured positions that we felt like throwing up.

They haven’t just attracted fans with their dazzling tennis, but with their personalities and unique qualities. The elegance, awe-inspiring shot selection at times, and seeming effortlessness of Federer has helped earn him an enormous fan base, while many others are captivated by Djokovic and Nadal’s incredible endurance and more expressive on-court personalities. All three have brought myriad fans to the tennis community.

Despite the undeniable talent of the NextGen, it’s not close to what the Big Three have brought to tennis (at least not yet). The quality of what we’ve watched from these players and their rivalries with each other may never be seen again in men’s tennis. Nadal and Federer’s forehands as well as Djokovic’s backhand might not just be the best ever, but the best there will ever be.

So let’s enjoy them while they’re here. They’re still among the best in the world, but there’s no mistaking that their best days are behind them. Soon enough, they’ll take their leave from professional tennis and we’ll be left wondering how the golden days of the men’s game went by so quickly.

But it’s not over yet. When the tour starts up again, Djokovic will still be number one. Nadal will be number two. Federer, recovering from knee surgery, will be in the bottom half of the top ten, but eager to climb the ladder. All three will be fighting to contend for major titles. This story may be in its closing stages, but it’s not over yet.

Martina Navratilova said it best at the end of the Strokes of Genius documentary on the 2008 Wimbledon final:

“We’re so lucky.”

Thanks to everyone who had a hand in putting this article together. There are too many to name here, but dozens of people contributed stats on Twitter, and the help is hugely appreciated. As always, feedback is welcome; feel free to leave a comment or tweet @tennisnation. Thanks for reading!

Assessing the Grand Slam Results in 2019

By Owen Lewis

    2019 was an exciting year of tennis that saw many epic matches and dramatic moments. Let’s take a look: 

Australian Open Winners: Novak Djokovic and Naomi Osaka

The first slam of the year offered up the same winners as the 2018 U.S. Open. Osaka impressively backed up her win in New York, winning her second slam, while Djokovic continued his dominance from the tail end of 2018. Osaka, seeded fourth, battled to the final, beating sixth seed Elina Svitolina in the quarterfinals and seventh seed Karolina Pliskova in the semis. Pliskova had made a remarkable comeback against Serena Williams in the quarterfinals, erasing a 5-1 deficit in the third set and saving four match points. 

    Osaka faced off against Petra Kvitova, the eighth seed, in the final. She came out strong, winning a high-quality opening set in a tiebreak. In the second set, Osaka held three championship points with her opponent serving at 3-5 and 0-40 down. The drama heightened as Kvitova saved all three match points with nerveless tennis, including an inside-out forehand winner. Riding the momentum, Kvitova broke Osaka when she was serving for the match and ended up winning the set 7-5. After missing championship points, it seemed that Osaka might fold at the start of the deciding set, but she regrouped admirably and took the third set 6-4. Unlike the 2018 U.S. Open final, (when Osaka’s opponent, Serena Williams, had an argument with the chair umpire that robbed Osaka much of the joy of her victory), there was nothing to detract from the happiness of the moment. 

    The men’s final wasn’t nearly as competitive. The top two seeds, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, stormed through their respective draws. Djokovic dropped two sets, and Nadal didn’t lose one. Many expected a fierce battle akin to their 5 hour, 53 minute marathon in the 2012 Australian Open final (Djokovic won 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5), but Djokovic, in one of his best performances ever, crushed Nadal in straight sets. Nadal had just one break point (that he was unable to take, netting a routine backhand) in the 6-3, 6-2, 6-3 loss. Djokovic was imperious throughout the match, hitting cleanly and consistently from both wings and serving well. Nadal, on the other hand, was strangely unable to find the form that had carried him to the final. He didn’t win a point on the Djokovic serve until the ninth game of the match, and made many uncharacteristic errors. His opponent never looked back after breaking in Nadal’s first service game and claimed his 15th Grand Slam, moving up to 3rd on the all-time men’s list. 

French Open Winners: Ash Barty and Rafael Nadal

The women’s draw at this French Open fell apart almost immediately. Osaka lost in straight sets in the third round, as did second seed Pliskova. No top-five player made the semifinals, and the unseeded 19-year-old Marketa Vondrousova made the final. Barty, for her part, played a fantastic tournament, beating Vondrousova 6-1, 6-3 in the final. 

Nadal is, unquestionably, the greatest clay-court player ever, and had won 11 French Open titles even before the 2019 tournament. He has only lost twice at the event—in 2009 and 2015—and his dominance on clay is virtually unparalleled in sport. 2019 was no exception, and Nadal claimed his 12th title in Paris with a four-set win over Dominic Thiem in the final: 6-3, 5-7, 6-1, 6-1. Djokovic, who was trying for his fourth straight slam title, lost to Thiem in the semifinals. Over two days, Thiem won 6-2, 3-6, 7-5, 5-7, 7-5 in arguably the biggest win of his career. Unfortunately for him, a second tennis titan was waiting for him in the final. Nadal played brilliantly for the final two sets of the match and claimed his 18th Grand Slam title. 

Wimbledon Winners: Novak Djokovic and Simona Halep

    The two Wimbledon finals could not have been more different. In the women’s final, Simona Halep played the match of her life. She was a clear underdog against six-time champion Serena Williams, but won 6-2, 6-2 in an absolutely flawless performance. Halep hit just three unforced errors across the match, and even Williams (regarded as the best female player ever) was helpless against the onslaught. Halep, previously seen as a hard/clay court specialist who would be less competitive on grass, dispelled this notion thoroughly in the 56 minutes it took to beat Williams. 

    In comparison, the men’s final between Djokovic and Roger Federer lasted 4 hours and 57 minutes- the longest Wimbledon final ever. The newly instituted 12-all deciding set tiebreak came into play for the first time (previously, the deciding set at Wimbledon extended until a player led by two games. This once extended to 70-68 in the fifth set of a first-round match between Nicolas Mahut and John Isner) at the end of Djokovic’s 7-6 (5), 1-6, 7-6 (4), 4-6, 13-12 (3) victory. Djokovic was a clear favorite, and took the first set in a tiebreak. Federer had many chances to take the set, though- seven times, he was two points away from winning the set, but lost the point each time. His best chance came at 5-3 up in the tiebreak. Federer virtually handed Djokovic the set with back-to-back-to-back forehand misses followed by a backhand error. Djokovic played an oddly flat second set, and Federer took full advantage, taking the set comfortably by a score of 6-1. 

    Djokovic regrouped well in the third set, staving off a set point at 4-5 with a great serve. He opened up a 5-1 lead in the tiebreak despite it seeming that the set had been under Federer’s control for most of the time. Djokovic took the tiebreak 7-4, earning a two-sets-to-one lead. Remarkably, he hadn’t had a break point in the entire match, yet led comfortably because he played better tiebreaks. 

    Federer didn’t fold in the fourth set, breaking his opponent twice and winning the set 6-4, sealing it with a swing volley winner. The fifth set was the most enthralling, bizarre, and entertaining set of the match. Djokovic got the first break, going up 4-2, and it appeared that he would run away with the set, but Federer broke back immediately and held serve for 4-4. Djokovic was two points away from the title with Federer serving at 4-5 and 5-6, but his 38-year-old opponent held him off. With Djokovic serving at 7-7, a Federer forehand winner and two unforced errors from the racket of Djokovic brought up a break point, which Federer took with a forehand passing shot. 

    Serving for his 21st Grand Slam title, Federer missed a forehand, but Djokovic returned the favor to make it 15-all. Federer then slammed a 125 mph ace down the tee to move within two points of the trophy. His next serve was another ace, this one 120 mph and perfectly placed. At 40-15, Djokovic hit a deep return off a second serve, and Federer sent a forehand wide. At 40-30, the second match point, Federer approached the net and Djokovic rolled a classic crosscourt forehand past him. At deuce, Federer netted a weak forehand. On break point, he did the same. Just like that, it was 8-8, and the championship points were gone. At 11-11, Djokovic saved two break points to hold serve for the last time. Federer held to love with an ace to push the match into a deciding tiebreak. 

    It was fairly anticlimactic. Djokovic went ahead 4-1 early on and sealed the match with a 7-3 win in the breaker. It was his 16th slam, and he further decreased Federer’s lead on him in the all-time men’s rankings. 

U.S. Open Winners: Bianca Andreescu and Rafael Nadal

    Bianca Andreescu is a fantastic player. As a 19-year-old, she won Indian Wells, one of the biggest non-major tournaments, earlier this year before injuries felled her for a few months. She hasn’t lost a match outright (not because of injury) since early March. She even remarked recently that she’s kind of forgotten the feeling of losing. At the U.S. Open, Andreescu played brilliantly. She was pushed to a third set several times, but always held her nerve. Her opponent in the final?  Serena Williams. Williams was the pre-match favorite, but Andreescu took the first set comfortably and went up 5-1 in the second. She had a match point when serving at 5-1, but Williams showed exceptional grit to claw back to 5-5. Many felt that a miracle Serena comeback was on the cards, but Andreescu stopped the rot and held for 6-5. With Williams serving to stay in the championship, her opponent earned a championship point at 30-40, and took the opportunity with an inside-in forehand return winner. There will surely be more majors for the young star. She may even be ranked #1 by the end of the season. 

    Roger Federer and his ailing back lost in the quarterfinals to Grigor Dimitrov, and Stan Wawrinka’s one-handed backhand sent Djokovic and his injured shoulder out of the tournament in the fourth round. Nadal’s draw was left relatively open, and his opponent in the final was Daniil Medvedev, a 23-year-old Russian who had dominated the North American hard court swing. Medvedev was visibly tired in his earlier matches, and he was the heavy underdog against Nadal, one of the all time greats. 

    It looked like Nadal was on course for an easy win when he won the first two sets and went up a break in the third. But Medvedev was given a lifeline when Nadal missed an easy overhead volley at 3-2 up and deuce in the third set, and the Russian broke back. He later played an exceptional return game with Nadal serving at 5-6, and took the set with an inside-out backhand winner. In the fourth set, Medvedev pounced with Nadal serving to stay in the fourth set at 4-5, and tied the match with a majestic backhand return winner struck from way outside the court. Suddenly it seemed that a huge upset could be afoot. With all the momentum behind Medvedev, Nadal had to save a couple crucial break points early in the set with some strong attacking tennis. In the fifth game, Nadal broke after a long rally, then broke again for 5-2. Medvedev, however, refused to lie down and clawed back to 5-4, saving two championship points along the way. He managed to force a break point with Nadal trying to serve out the match for a second time, but it was saved with a vicious inside-out forehand. Nadal reached championship point with a drop shot winner and took his chance with a 124 mph serve down the middle. Nadal had managed to hang on, but Medvedev pushed him to the brink and will surely be in contention for some big titles next year. 

Assessments

    Women’s tennis is wide open. We had four different slam winners this year, and any player can upset another at any time, as demonstrated by many top players’ early losses in slams this year. However, Andreescu has been playing incredibly well, and assuming she continues her fine form, I predict she will win two slams next year. I don’t think Serena will win another slam. She made two finals this year, losing in straight sets both times. She can still compete at a high level, but when she comes up against a quality opponent in a final she’s been unable to produce her best tennis. It may well be a mental block, and at 38 years old, time isn’t on the 23-time slam champion’s side. That said, it will be a surprise to few if she manages to win another slam or more. 

    On the men’s side, the struggle between the Big Three (Federer, Djokovic, Nadal) continues. Federer has the most slams (20), but he is 38 years old and I think that this year’s Wimbledon final may serve as a huge mental barrier in the way of winning future slams. Federer’s chances of winning the French Open (if he decides to play) are very low- Nadal, Thiem, and Djokovic would all be heavily favored in a match against Federer. Djokovic will be a solid favorite at the Australian Open next year, as a seven-time champion. Federer’s best chance will be at Wimbledon. Again, I won’t be surprised if he wins another slam, but I don’t expect him to. Next year, I think three out of the four slams will be won by Djokovic and Nadal, and the fourth will go to a younger player like Medvedev.

Wimbledon 2019: Week One Assessments

By Owen Lewis

It’s the break between weeks 1 and 2 of Wimbledon, with “Manic Monday” coming up tomorrow. The second week is sure to bring more action to what has already been an incredibly compelling tournament. Andy Murray and Serena Williams teamed up in a dream mixed doubles partnership, 15-year-old Coco Gauff made a fairytale run to the fourth round, and Rafael Nadal produced an extremely entertaining win over the enigmatic Nick Kyrgios. Let’s look at the top players’ performances so far, as well as some of the best stories and a few of my predictions.

The Big Three

The trio of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic have dominated men’s tennis for what seems an age, starting with Federer’s ascent in 2003. Each of the last 10 major tournaments has been won by one of these giants, and it would be a big surprise if things went differently this week.

-Federer dropped the first set of his opening-round match to Lloyd Harris, but only lost five games for the rest of the contest. He then earned straight-set wins over Jay Clarke and Lucas Pouille in the second and third rounds, respectively. Still, he’s averaging just over eight aces a match (a bit low for him), and hasn’t really played at his imperious best yet. With an upcoming fourth-rounder against Matteo Berrettini, who has made waves on grass this year with an 11-1 record, Federer will likely have to step up his game to continue his smooth progress. Grade: B+

-Nadal, coming off a 12th French Open victory in Paris last month, has been impressive in his first few matches. Grass is the world No. 2’s least favorite surface, but he broke a string of less-than-impressive results at Wimbledon by making the semifinal last year, and looks to build on that result in 2019. His pre-tournament draw, however, was intimidating (it’s slackened considerably thanks to several upsets). After cruising in his opening match, Nadal clashed with Nick Kyrgios, the talented but self-destructive Aussie, in a second round blockbuster. Kyrgios lacks consistently strong results, but has wins over each member of the Big Three, including a four-set win over Nadal at the 2014 Wimbledon. The first two sets were split, and the next two went to tiebreaks. Though Nadal had never beaten Kyrgios in a tiebreak, he impressively took both “breakers”, grinding out a tough four-set win: 6-3, 3-6, 7-6 (5), 7-6 (3).

In the third round, Nadal crushed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, a former Wimbledon semifinalist, for the loss of only seven games. He lost just 10 points on serve through the whole match and never faced a break point in the process. He’s averaged 11 aces a match, which is an unusually high tally for the Spanish lefty. At one point when Nadal was ranked No. 1 during the 2018 season, he averaged fewer aces per match than 98 out of the top 100 players. Nadal isn’t known for his serve, but seems to have adjusted well to the clay-grass surface change- at Wimbledon, he often flattens out his serve, increasing the pace.

Nadal has a seemingly straightforward fourth-rounder against Joao Sousa of Portugal, and won’t face a seeded player until the semifinals, where he could play Roger Federer. With the grass playing slower this year, Nadal will feel more comfortable- if he can stay efficient during the next couple rounds, he will be deadly at the business end of the tournament. Grade: A

-Djokovic was, unquestionably, the pre-tournament favorite. He’s the current world No. 1 and the winner of three out of the last four slams. Few have lowered his status as the favorite- upsets of Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev have made his draw significantly easier. With Federer and Nadal on the other side of the draw, he has the least difficult path to the final.

Djokovic won a potentially tricky opening-rounder against Philipp Kohlschreiber, then rolled American Denis Kudla in round two. His next match was significantly more tricky, though. Djokovic had to battle in order to advance, coming through a tough four-setter against Herbert Hurkacz. After a close first set, Hurkacz hit some incredible shots on his way to winning the second-set tiebreak. His level dipped after the set, and Djokovic lost just five games during the last two sets. Still, he didn’t play as well as in either of his first two matches, missing first serves at crucial moments and hitting more double faults than he did in his first two matches combined.

Despite a slight dip in form during his third-rounder, Djokovic is still the favorite with most. It will be a huge surprise if he doesn’t make the final at the least. Grade: A-

The NextGen

Although the Big Three are an extremely rare talent, the young’uns of tennis have struggled to dethrone the 30+ year-olds. The only one to have made the final of a major so far is Dominic Thiem, who lost in the first round at Wimbledon this year. Many believe that their poor results are because their generation is a weak one, while others state that the Big Three are just that good. Either way, the young stars again failed to impress at Wimbledon.

-Stefanos Tsitsipas made the semifinals at the Australian Open, beating Federer along the way. At the French Open, he made the fourth round before losing an absolute nail-biter to Stan Wawrinka. But at Wimbledon, the 7th seed lost in the first round to unseeded Thomas Fabbiano. At least he saved a couple match points in the fourst set before falling 6-3 in the fifth. Grade: D

-Alexander Zverev has had success at every level except the majors, and has suffered a vicious dip in form after his ATP Finals victory at the end of 2018. He went 1/7 in break points during his first-rounder against the unseeded Jiri Vesely, losing in four sets. Grade: F

-Dominic Thiem had beaten Djokovic in the semis of the French Open in an impressive five-setter before losing to Nadal in the final. At Wimbledon, however, he lost in four sets to the…you guessed it…unseeded Sam Querrey. He lost the fourth set 6-0, winning just five points along the way. Grade: F-

-Felix Auger-Aliassime, an 18-year-old from Canada, was the fifth favorite with some odds-makers despite never having won a grand slam match. Still, many expected him to make a splash at Wimbledon, backing up his encouraging results on the grass courts of Queen’s Club and Stuttgart. The Canadian was slated to play Djokovic in the fourth round, but after two four-set wins, he put up disappointingly little resistance against Ugo Humbert in the third round. After losing the first set, FAA wasted a 5-2 lead in the second set, then folded almost immediately in the third. Grade: C

-Nick Kyrgios, though he didn’t make it past the second round, did play well against Nadal. Still, his shockingly blunt responses in press alienated any fans he may have earned during his time at Wimbledon. Grade: D

Coco Gauff

-Coco Gauff has been the story of the tournament so far. At fifteen years old, she beat her idol Venus Williams in the first round, then won her next match in straight sets. In the third round against Polona Hercog, Gauff was down a set and 5-2, serving at match point down. She played a nerveless point, hitting a backhand slice winner that landed plum on the sideline. Gauff broke Hercog in the next game, saving another match point along the way, and went on to seal a remarkable victory 3-6, 7-6 (7), 7-5.

Gauff’s next opponent is Simona Halep, last year’s French Open champion and former world No. 1 (it’s not on Center Court for some reason). She is by no means the favorite, but it wouldn’t be a shock if she won, either. With the women’s game as competitive as it is, Gauff has a great opportunity to extend her remarkable run even further. The world will be watching. Grade: A+

Others

-Serena Williams, now 37 years old, hasn’t won a slam in two and a half years. She lost weakly in the third round of the French Open, and hasn’t played a warmup event prior to Wimbledon. And yet some still pick her to win. Serena is unquestionably the GOAT on the women’s side, and still has the game to be at the top. She had a scare in her second-round match, winning 2-6, 6-2, 6-4, but she has a very winnable fourth-rounder against Carla Suarez Navarro. If Serena can avoid a mid-tournament hiccup and maintain her focus, she’ll be a nightmare for anyone to play. Side note: she’s playing mixed with Andy Murray, which may or may not take a toll on her singles level. Grade: B

-Ash Barty is in red-hot form right now. Recently crowned world No. 1, French Open champion, few would be surprised to see her lift the trophy in London. So far, she’s been terrorizing her opponents, not coming close to dropping a set. In my opinion, Barty is definitely the one to beat, and the favorite to take the women’s title. Grade: A

-Kei Nishikori has made the second week of a slam once again, and has yet to drop a set. But he has so many factors working against him. He’s not as durable as many other players, and a common theme is him being pushed too hard by a player he should beat easily, then getting emasculated by Nadal or Djokovic (or retiring injured). He has a winnable fourth-round match against Mikhail Kukushkin, but will likely play Federer after that. To top it off, grass is his worst surface, and he lacks the big serve/forehand to win points efficiently. I think his chances of winning are as low as anyone’s at this point. Even so, he should be fresh so far, due in part to his fairly easy draw of unseeded players- don’t be surprised if he makes the quarterfinals, but I’m reasonably confident that’s as far as he’ll go. Grade: A (based on play so far)

SerAndy

Andy Murray is back! No, not in singles, but he’s on court and that’s a great start. Murray entered in both the men’s doubles and mixed doubles for Wimbledon, teaming with Pierre-Hughes Herbert and Serena Williams, respectively. Murray and Herbert lost in the second round of the men’s doubles, but he and Serena won their first round in mixed. Regardless of the outcome, it’s amazing to see such great players partnered up. Best of luck to them for the rest of the tournament.

Predictions

-For the men, it’s just too hard to see Djokovic losing at the moment, though Nadal is my solid second favorite. Nadal will beat Federer in a four-set semifinal, and in the final Djokovic wins 6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-3.

-Barty is playing so well at the moment. I back her to ride the momentum to her first slam title. Dark horses: Gauff, Serena, and Elina Svitolina.

-For the mixed doubles, I’ll go with Murray and Serena. Why not? What a story it would be.