Tennis Stats for The Big Four

The Big Three Domination, is there an end in sight?

2019-09-09T15:41:00.000+01:00

The Big Four has been the Big Three for longer than we think

Whilst in the past we discussed the 'Big Four', it really has been only the 'Big Three' (referred to as BT) all along when we look back in time. Murray was a great challenger to the BT but as time moves on, the BT with Andy just outside it makes more sense than discussing a 'Big Four'.

Nadal in action at Wimbledon 2019

Nadal's win at US Open

Some will suggest that Rafa got an 'easy' US Open win by not having to defeat his toughest rivals en-route to the title. Federer and Djokovic both went out rather timidly. Federer went out in 5 sets to Dimitrov in the Quarter final and was clearly struggling with back pain. Djokovic had to retire in his Round of 16 match against Wawrinka.

You could argue that this made it a more straightforward title for Nadal (I am sure Medvedev would argue this point).

When we look at the data it provides some interesting insights. Below shows Grand Slam final results from the start of 2017 to yesterday's US Open final.

Insight #1 Nadal has won the most
When we look back at the last 3 seasons/12 Slams of tennis our natural instinct is to think Rafa picked up the 3 Roland Garros available in this time, with Federer's revival at Australia and Wimbledon leaving him and Djokovic battling for the remaining 9.

The breakdown of Finals, Wins and Runners Up:

Nadal - 7 Finals, 5 Wins, 2 RU
Djokovic - 4 Finals, 4 Wins
Federer - 4 Finals, 3 Wins, 1 RU

This is pretty impressive stuff by Nadal and also shows he has been the most consistent Slam performer over the past 3 years despite this sense that it has been a battle between Djokovic and Federer. This may be down to the fact that Nadal has been pretty much been a cert for the Roland Garros crowns and therefore these wins are almost taken out of consideration - such is his dominance on clay.

Insight #2 The BT have only met in 3 of past 12 finals

The notion that Nadal may have had an easier run to his 4th US open title and 19th Slam without having to face Djokovic or Federer seems like a valid enough viewpoint at first glance. However, when we look at Finals, 75% of these have been won by a BT player without having to face another BT. Does that mean that those 9 wins were 'easy'?

If we take a look a bit deeper at BT Head to Heads in from the Australian Open 2017 to US Open 2019..

Federer v Nadal

Played 3: Federer 2 - 1 Nadal

2019 Wimbledon SF - Federer

2019 Roland Garros SF - Nadal

2017 Australian Open F - Federer

Nadal v Djokovic

Played 2: Nadal 0 - 2 Djokovic

2019 Australian Open F - Djokovic

2018 Wimbledon SF - Djokovic

Djokovic v Federer

Played 1: Djokovic 1 - Federer 0

2019 Wimbledon F - Djokovic

The H2H records in the past 12 slams show Djokovic comes out top when he plays Nadal or Federer. The last time Djokovic lost to Nadal at a slam was the Final of the 2014 Roland Garros. For Federer's last win against Djokovic at a slam you have to go even further back to the 2012 Wimbledon Semi-Final.

Race for the Greatest Ever

Will we look back at this era, the greatest in tennis history, with a clear picture of who was the best of the best? Most Grand Slam wins will likely tip the balance in favour of whoever comes out on top of that list.

Previous articles have discussed the greatest ever discussion and covers the H2H element in the debate on top of most slam victories.

However it pans out over the coming years, the expectation is the battle is a long way from being over.

Current Slams Leaderboard

Federer - 20

Nadal - 19

Djokovic - 16

Who will finish on top?

At the beginning of 2017, many would have suggested Djokovic was the biggest threat to Federer's total haul which was 17 at the time. Nadal had injury issues and there was a sense he could win 1-2 more at Roland Garros he was looking like a player in decline, arguably more so than his senior Federer.

Now as the last slam of 2019 has concluded, you can't rule out any of these guys finishing top.

In 2020, we expect Nadal to get an unprecedented 13th Roland Garros title which will see him get level with Federer. But he has also shown great consistency on hard courts in recent years and has to be thinking he can win at Australia too.

My prediction for 2020 is as follows:

Djokovic to win 2 (from Australia, Wimbledon and US Open), Nadal to win 1 (Roland Garros) and mu boldest prediction is that a newbie will win the other... for how many years have we been saying that?

Based on that prediction the end of 2020 will be:

Federer - 20

Nadal - 20

Djokovic - 18

Who knows what will happen? But what we do know is that greatest 3-way war in sports history is unfolding chapter after chapter and we should all be grateful to be part of this epic journey.

Roger, Rafa and Novak - THANK YOU!

Is Djokovic the Villain in the Federer Pantomime?

2019-07-16T23:16:00.001+01:00

The Federer v. Djokovic rivalry has become a classic hero v. villain narrative that has been played out 48 times to date. Like any of these stories, the longer the villain has power over the hero, the more anger is pointed towards the villain.

The Hero

Federer hits a forehand v Nadal at Wimbledon 2019

The dictionary tells us it is 'a person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.' Etymologically the word Hero comes from Greek hērōs meaning demi-god or illustrious man.This is of uncertain origin; perhaps originally "defender or protector".
Roland Garros in the 1990s became even more specialised in terms of who had a chance of winning it outright. A lot of the champions at Roland Garros in the 90's and early 00's would see their only Grand Slam victories coming on the clay, that was the level of specialisation on that surface. When Nadal managed the RG and Wimbledon double in 2008 it was hailed as a miraculous achievement, not since Bjorg in 1980 had we seen someone achieve this double.
The Hard Courts in the 90's and 00's were somewhere in the middle but still favoured to an extent the big hitting power players like Rafter, Sampras, Safin and Roddick all winning titles. The baseliners had more of a shot at winning than they did during this period than they would've had at Wimbledon but nevertheless the most likely way to win in New York was to have a big serve and a strong volley and/or powerful groundstrokes to keep rallies short.
We are so used to long rallies now on all surfaces but back in those days 20+ shot rallies were very few and far between. Roland Garros was the only tournament were the big power serves were negated by the clay surface, so this was the only slam were long, suspenseful rallies were expected.
Federer's defeat of Pete Sampras, in their one and only meeting, represented for many a changing of the guard at the helm of Men's tennis. It also represented the transition from the 'robotic' power players to a more graceful, more artistic and more flamboyant champion in Federer. Now modern fans had an idle they could take to battle in the GOAT debates against the likes of Bjorg, Connors or Laver. A debate which had more meat on the bone than just pure numbers. He could compete on all surfaces and against all styles. An all-rounder that quickly found the admiration sponsors and fans alike.

In tennis terms, Federer is and has been the Heroic figure since his rise to the top of the tennis tree when he hit No.1 in the World at the beginning of 2004. Why Federer became a hero to so many is likely a combination of various factors, here are a few:

1. Evolution of Tennis and the arrival of Federer

Before Federer's arrival at No.1 in the World, Men's tennis was at one of those generational junctures. Sampras and Agassi were coming towards the end of their careers and Grand Slams were being shared among a range of players. The Grand Slams had also tended towards specific player styles with the possibility of a player winning all four slams deemed almost impossible. Speciality players on clay would regularly drop out of Wimbledon in the first round. We also had the glamorous 80's. There was Bjorg who transformed the popularity of tennis with his rockstar like impact on the sport. Then McEnroe, the flamboyant serve-volleyer, with a fiery temper that made him stand out as the bad boy of tennis - the Villian in the Bjorg pantomime. The difference between McEnroe and Djokovic was that McEnroe was a bad boy. Regularly directing profanities towards officials to make his views felt and courting controversy all the way late into his career. This was a romantic era in tennis and the 90's was never able to live up to that. Side note: if Hawkeye existed back in the 80's how much impact would this have had on McEnroe's legacy?

The 90s came along and the power + fitness combination which began to dominate in the latter half of the 80s was now the staple diet. Wimbledon in the 90s was dominated by big servers bar the anomalous victory of Andre Agassi in 1992. How he managed to win on grass in that era was somewhat made clearer in his autobiography 'Open'. He describes a turbo-charged tennis ball machine concocted by his Father: 'My father says that if I hit 2,500 balls each day, I'll hit 17,500 balls each week, and at the end of one year I'll have hit nearly one million balls.' The 'Dragon' as it became nicknamed represented some of the players Andre would defeat on his way to winning that title, especially the big serving Goran Ivanisevic in the final. Agassi proved to be a cult hero in the latter part of his career. The rise to the top, the fall from grace and in the rankings and then rising back to no. 1 and reaching his potential as an all round great player. He is just one of eight players to have won all four slams and when he won his fourth in 1999 at Roland Garros, he was the first to do so since Roy Emerson had completed the feat in 1964. He was the fifth player to do, the list of eight now includes the modern big three - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. A hero's journey of his own.

The big serving power game exemplified at Wimbledon was perceived by purists as damaging to tennis. Ace counts were a leading stat and even service breaks sometimes depended on the big server hitting a few double faults. Rallies were very short and generally the game wasn't as exciting to watch as it used to be. Sampras won 6 of his 7 Wimbledon titles in the 90's and whilst his greatness cannot be doubted, he was never the most exciting player to watch. We saw a ruthless efficiency from him.

The trend continued into the start of the 00's, but that trend would slow to a halt in 2002. That year the Wimbledon authorities switched to 100% perennial ryegrass which wears better under shuffling feet. The courts were previously composed of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. This change meant a slowing of the ball and since then the big servers have struggled against the baseliners with a strong return of serve.

Lleyton Hewitt became the unlikeliest winner of Wimbledon in 2002, a decade after Agassi had caused a shock from the baseline. Since then the style of Roger Federer has been a dominating force at Wimbledon and most of the other grand slams for that matter.

From his first Grand Slam win at Wimbledon in 2003 to his 12th at the US Open in 2007 his dominance was becoming a bit of a concern for some. It was an interesting case of be careful what you wish for, the new hero was amazing to watch but was he too good? His dominance meant the game of tennis was possibly becoming boring for those other than the avid Federer fans. Nadal had started his path to greatness by winning 3 Roland Garros titles in this period but wasn't seen as a serious threat on any of the other surfaces until the 2007 Wimbledon final. He really pushed Federer and people were willing to accept a rival for Federer, all great players need great rivalries after-all. Federer could now test his greatness on a regular basis in Grand Slam finals. All his predecessors had their rivals eg Laver v Emerson, Bjorg v McEnroe, Edberg v Becker, Sampras v Agassi. Nadal was perfect! He was muscles and aggression, someone who you knew worked the game like a scientist. You could see hard work and heart in his style and this was heightened by the sleeveless tops showing off those iconic biceps. He was the antithesis of Federer's slick artistic approach to the game, the perfect foil. However, he was a bit too good to play this role! He was only supposed to compete with Federer in finals and push it to 5 sets maybe - but never to begin dominating on all surfaces. 2010 was Nadal's best year when he took the Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open titles. Djokovic at this time was a young pretender, a player with potential but someone who wasn't deemed a serious threat in the grand scheme of greatness - despite having one grand slam to his name from the 2008 Australian. Before Djokovic developed into the role of villain (as perceived by Federer fans), Nadal whilst popular was always playing second fiddle to the crowds when up against the Swiss Maestro. This is even the case at Roland Garros were he has dominated so much - when he plays Federer, the Chatrier crowd don't hide their feelings on who they want to prevail. The reaction to his 2009 RG title, his only victory there, was arguably the most rapturous reaction from a crowd at any Grand Slam victory in recent memory.

2. Style

Federer's style is unquestionably the most artistic of all when it comes to the list of all time greats. The way he plays looks effortless. When his backhand is on form there is no better sight in tennis. His defence was always underestimated because he glided on the court, it looked like the other guys were all working so much harder even though they weren't.

The sponsorships followed quickly and he became a superstar bigger than the sport of Tennis itself. A clean cut guy from the alpine regions of Switzerland - down to earth, hard working and very classy. He represented all the great qualities that tennis wants to portray. The Federer fans quickly evolved into superfans as he began to dominate everyone else. Highlighting the views on Federer's rise was encapsulated in the NY Times in 2006 with a headline reading 'Roger Federer as Religious Experience'.

The love for Federer is at a point today were we see another tennis great being treated like a bad guy as he is in the way of their hero's path.

3. Dominance

When a player this good to watch begins dominating, it gives the generation growing up with him their own player to fight for when it comes to the GOAT debates. Federer was rising up the ladder rapidly and eventually surpassing everyone else (Sampras in the all time list, or Bjorg's 5 in a row Wimbledon record). After the Australian Open in 2010 he was sitting on 16 Grand Slams, out on his own on the all-time Men's leaderboard. His fans expected to continue adding to this haul for the foreseeable future and it filled them with pride, like any sports fan who follows a winning team or individual. The issue for Federer is that in these 7 years he won 16 Slams but in the following 7 he would win just 4. Whilst those 4 have arguably been more impressive due to his age and longevity, it is not what the fans wanted. Nadal had been accepted in his own right and to fill the role as the rival for Federer. When Djokovic would enter later and start his own period of dominance, he was getting in the way. He was getting in the way of Federer winning more titles and also in the way of the great Federer v Nadal rivalry that had begun to blossom. There wasn't room for one more but Djokovic wasn't ready to follow the script any time soon.

The Villain

Djokovic applauds a winner v Bautista-Agut at Wimbledon 2019

The villain archetype wants to stop the hero from achieving his or her goal. The villain is often evil, though there is often a reason why villains are so bad.

So let's take a look at why Djokovic became marked with the stamp of the villainess character.

1. Threat to the Hero

The most obvious reason why Djokovic unfortunately has picked up this role in the storyline of tennis is very much due to his rivalry with Federer. A villain is usually evil by nature but in tennis 'evil' may just be a metaphor for going up against what is good aka Federer.

Djokovic seems like a great person and great role model both on and off the court. You can tell at times he does not like it when the crowd cheer for the opposite player, which let's be honest - would you like that? At Grand Slams it is very common for the attendees to shout for the underdog in the hope to see longer matches meaning more tennis and better value for their ticket fee and day out. Therefore, Djokovic is most likely going to have the crowd against him pretty much all the time. I have been to matches when the crowd are going for Federer's opponent and it is for the same reasons mentioned above. Djokovic has struggled with the crowd going against him all his career. In 2018 US Open the crowd cheered when Djokovic double faulted in his match against Joao Sousa. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova spoke out in Djokovic's defence after the match saying “I know how it feels when the crowd is against you and you’re like ‘why don’t you love me?’” Navratilova said on the Tennis Channel. “It maybe some Slovak thing. Lendl was certainly not embraced..I wasn’t embraced for a long time and Novak should be getting a lot more crowd support than he gets..Yes, he can whined a little bit here and there but he’s such a good guy. Works so hard and the crowd, for me, they have not been fair to him.”

Over the years he has shown time and time again that when his back to the wall he is at his most dangerous. Here are some of the examples v Federer:

US Open 2010 Semi Final - Djokovic won 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5
Quote from The Guardian: "Novak Djokovic not only dumped Roger Federer out of the US Open to rob tennis of what everyone bar Rafael Nadal reckoned would be the sport's all-time heavyweight championship. His pulsating win in the second semi-final also bolstered the suspicion that the Swiss's decline is turning from gradual to terminal." Note the narrative back then alluding to the idea that Djokovic was upsetting the status quo by robbing everyone of the match they wanted to see. In the fifth set Djokovic faced 2 match points. He showed that unbelievable depth of character to pull out some of his best tennis in the match to save those match points. This hold took it to 5-5, Federer didn't win another game.

US Open 2011 Semi Final - Djokovic won 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5
This was an even more painful loss for Federer. As the Guardian suggested one year previous, Federer was perceived as in being in decline (imagine if they could've seen eight years into the future). He was up two sets and this time had two match points on his own serve, one of his most reliable weapons on the big points.
There is no doubt this went through Federer's mind as he served for the Wimbledon title at 8-7 with two championship points. Surely history cannot repeat itself?
What people who follow Federer probably like to forget is how he humiliated Djokovic in the 2009 US Open semi-final. He won in three straight sets and hit a very naughty tweener to set up match point. Whilst it was an amazing moment in tennis history and Federer rightly jumped for joy, when the camera shoots to Djokovic you could see the humiliation (and motivation). Federer two years on would criticise Djokovic's hit and hope forehand as classless and lucky, yet his tweener was in good taste? Again, this moment can't be underestimated in spicing up their rivalry. At 40-15, Djokovic waited at the baseline and began to nod his head. This nod was one of defiance towards a very pro-Federer crowd. The spectators were so rapturous every time Federer edged closer to victory that you felt this time it would help to actually push him over. Djokovic was having none of it, and that forehand may go down in history as one of the greatest forehand winners of all time. It's importance still echoes today in light of the 2019 Wimbledon Final.

As he hit the winner he turned to the crowd and raised his arms, it was a request for respect. He got it momentarily but when he went on to win the match and cause heartbreak for Federer and his army, this one stung. Taken from the Guardian article post match: "It's awkward having to explain this loss because I feel like I should be doing the other press conference." There followed a string of excuses and justifications which not only were barely sustainable given the evidence but seriously disrespected the winner. Asked about the quite remarkable forehand winner Djokovic hit to save match point, Federer reckoned the Serb did not look at that point like someone "who believes much anymore in winning. To lose against someone like that, it's very disappointing, because you feel like he was mentally out of it already. Just gets the lucky shot at the end, and off you go." Djokovic was honest enough to admit the shot was a gamble – but Federer was reluctant to give him credit even for that courage in a crisis, preferring to regard it as desperate. "Confidence? Are you kidding me?" he said when it was put to him the cross-court forehand off his first serve – described by John McEnroe as "one of the all-time great shots" – was either a function of luck or confidence. "I mean, please. Some players grow up and play like that – being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. I never played that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. For me, this is very hard to understand. How can you play a shot like that on match point? Maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him." Djokovic was in a more relaxed mood. "Yeah, I tend to do that on match points," he said, reminded that it was exactly what he did to Federer last year. "It kinda works."

2. The 'Djoker' with the 'Fake Injuries'

As Djokovic began to challenge for Grand Slams he had developed two reputations other than being a very good tennis player. One was for his impressions and one was for his ailments which saw him forfeit a number of high profile matches or complain of injuries which raised question marks about his on-court integrity. The impressionist popularised the nickname 'Djoker' but in reality this may have added to his role as the villain, particularly at the US Open in 2008. The New York Times headline read 'The Arthur Ashe Crowd Has Fallen Out of Love With an Achy Djokovic' with the first paragraph reading 'From darling to dark knight, Novak Djokovic’s image in Gotham has taken such a tumble, it is no wonder he has been hailing trainers at this United States Open the way New Yorkers do cabs.' This commentary also alludes to a villainess character in the plot.

This reputation of someone who feigned injury earlier in his career has probably lingered to this day. His move to a gluten free diet in 2010 helped Djokovic put a lot of his issues to bed including allergies, asthma and chronic fatigue. However, this doesn't explain the controversy in 2015 in Melbourne in the Final Match v Murray. Below are some examples of medical issues during matches:

Australian Open Final defeated Murray:

Murray was angry at Djokovic for what the press described as faking injury. Djokovic explained "We both, of course, went through some tough moments physically. You could see that I had a crisis at the end of the second and beginning of the third. I just felt very exhausted and I needed some time to regroup and recharge and get back on track. That's what I've done."

Australian Open, 2010 lost to Tsonga:"I don't want to find excuses for my loss, but, you know, I went to vomit and I had diarrhoea before the match. After two games (of the fourth set) I had to go to the toilet. I couldn't hold on. There was no way, otherwise I would throw up on the court, just a terrible feeling."

Wimbledon, 2010 defeated Hewitt:Hewitt said: "He's always got something. He looked fine again in the fourth. He looked pretty comfortable at two sets to love." To which Djokovic responded: "I don't know why the people think that I'm always having something, which is absolutely wrong because I haven't asked for medical or physio timeout for a long time."

Australian Open, 2009 retired v Roddick: “I had cramping and soreness in my whole body. I tried my best but you cannot fight your own body.”

US Open, 2008 defeated Robredo: During a five-set victory Djokovic requested two medical timeouts and talked afterward about having two achy ankles, a sore hip and an unsettled stomach. An unhappy Robredo commented on Djokovic timeouts: “So did I trust him? No. I think he took his time because he did it because he was a little bit more tired and that’s a part of the game. It helped him a lot.”

Monte Carlo, April 2008 retired v Federer "I didn't feel good for the last three days. I've been waking up with a sore throat. The doctor in the tournament couldn't give me the right diagnosis."

Davis Cup, February 2008 retired v Davydenko: "I stopped because I didn't want to risk my health. I didn't go to hospital after all but still, I was feeling very dizzy. I was losing a lot of energy. It's not easy to play when you have a virus infection."

Wimbledon, 2007 semi-final retired v Nadal: "I didn't sleep during the night because I had a lot of bleeding and everything, so I was barely walking this morning,"

French Open, 2006 retired v Nadal: "I was only serving at 40 or 50 per cent maximum. I don't think it would have been good for me to continue playing with the pain in my back. This is not the only tournament in the year."

The nastiest exchange on this subject was with Andy Roddick. This was the follow up to the aforementioned Robredo match at the 2008 US Open. Roddick due to face Djokovic next was asked about the timeouts and he joked with a sting: “A back and a hip? And a cramp?... bird flu... anthrax... SARS... common cough and cold,” Roddick listed for reporters. “If it's there, it’s there, there’s just a lot. He’s either quick to call a trainer or he’s the most courageous guy of all time. It’s up to you guys to decide.”
Roddick later commented that Djokovic can do impressions of people but can't take a joke. He also claimed in later years he almost came to blows in when he pinned someone with a name similar Schmovak Schmokovic up against a locker.

After he went on to defeat Roddick, Djokovic in his on court interview made his feelings known: “That’s not nice anyhow to say in front of this crowd that I have 16 injuries and I am faking it. I have nothing against anybody. Andy was saying that I have 16 injuries in the last match so obviously I don’t, right?” Like it or not, it’s like that. They are already against me because they think I am faking everything, so sorry.”

3. Style and Dominance

The final element as to why Djokovic may not get the respect he certainly deserves may come to down to his style of play and his level of dominance in recent years.

Federer's artistry has been described a key attribute towards his hero status. A style that had saved tennis from big serving robots. The game rapidly evolved after Federer began to dominate. No longer did a big serve and some big groundstrokes win you the slams, you needed more strings to your bow. Djokovic and Murray's rise were very much aligned in terms of timelines. Both guys were relatively tall and had that balance of a strong serve, a strong backhand, a strong forehand and amazing defensive skills.

This textbook style of tennis was deemed by many as a bit dull in comparison to Federer's graceful attack and Nadal's big swinging forehand. In Djokovic's case, it was a style of predictability of the highest levels of effectiveness. Whilst nobody can deny Djokovic may be the most complete player of all time for technical ability, you don't hear many talk about his style of tennis in the awe and wonder you hear when people describe Federer.

The Future

Like many great rivalries, when this comes to and end one would think that there will be a mutual respect and to a certain extent a level of gratitude for bringing the very best out of each other.

Federer's legendary status is so solidified today, the expectation is that as time goes by this will only get reinforced. He will be a tennis hero for all time and will be discussed with reverence for many years to come.

Djokovic is a much more respected tennis player today compared to his early days of being the 'Djoker' who 'fakes injury'. He has now honed his technical skills and shown a level of depth in his character which means we can only respect him. You don't need to love him like fans idolise Federer but if you deny his greatness, then you know nothing of tennis.

On a personal level, I am a big fan of Djokovic. When you look at his childhood and where he came from to his rise in tennis you can only admire that journey, a hero's journey. From being questioned by his fellow players on his integrity, to now dominating tennis and becoming a very strong candidate to end with the most Men's grand slams wins - the future is very exciting for Djokovic. Perhaps the undesirable role of being the villain has helped him be the successful player he is today. His greatest moments come down to those times in matches when everything seems lost and everyone seems against him - he fights back and that is inspiring and one day that is how he will be remembered... A HERO!

Can't wait for US Open!

Want to be Inspired? Check out Djokovic's amazing story on Jay Shetty's Podcast:

2019 Wimbledon Final: What does Federer need to do to stop Djokovic eating grass?

2019-07-14T12:23:00.004+01:00

Today's Wimbledon Final between two of the greatest ever is almost sure to be a classic. This rivalry rarely throws up a match that isn't a classic.

Djokovic is Number 1 for a Reason

Djokovic is deservedly seeded 1 and favourite to regain his title. His record this year has been been to win 90% of his matches, with only 1 Grand Slam loss in 2019 and that has been his only loss since Roland Garros in 2018.

Federer's record for 2019 and Career win-loss are also very impressive numbers.
With 2 losses in Slams so far, to Nadal at Roland Garros at the Semi-Final stage and the shock loss to Tsitsipas in Australia.

Head to Head

Djokovic has a slight advantage their Head to Head. Federer's last win against Djokovic was at the 2015 ATP Finals in London. They have just played on 3 occasions since with Djokovic taking all 3 matches. Just one of those was in the Slams at the 2016 Australian. They had 2 meetings in 2018 and the last of those was a very tight 3 setter with Djokovic winning 7-6, 5-7, 7-6.

Head to Head at Wimbledon

These two have met just 3 times in their long careers and Djokovic leads that Head to Head 2-1.

2012 Wimbledon Semi-Final - Federer equals the record

Federer was the 3rd seed and progressed to his 24th Grand Slam final with a 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-3 win over tournament favourite Djokovic. It took Federer only two hours and 19 minutes to end the Serb's reign. He went to defeat Andy Murray in the Final to equal William Renshaw and Pete Sampras's record of seven Wimbledon crowns.

Whilst the stats don't tell the full story, they do give an indication of how both performed on the day. The most obvious stats are in the Winners and Unforced errors comparison, this tells the story that Federer was really on form that day. Djokovic also played quite a few points at the net which was as a result of the very aggressive style Federer deployed on the day. The 1st serve % is probably more important now for Federer. Seven years on, Federer will be wanting more easy points and shorter reallies so will be hoping for that number to be closer to the goal line of better than 70%.

2014 Wimbledon Final - Turning point in their rivalry

This was the first of two amazing finals and this one in particular ranks as one of the greatest men's finals of all time. It was their 35th competitive meeting and a big turning point in the rivalry as Djokovic took the lead 18-17 in their career Head to Head battle, he has been in the lead ever since.

The Serb, 27, came through 6-7 (7-9) 6-4 7-6 (7-4) 5-7 6-4 to win his second Wimbledon and seventh Grand Slam title. After letting a championship point slip in the fourth set, he won Wimbledon's first five-set final since 2009. Djokovic had lost his previous three major finals.

The stats in the one are very impressive from players and paint a picture of the classic that it was. Federer served amazingly well hitting 29 Aces and a 1st serve % of 69 (he would love to hit those numbers today). The Winners v Unforced Errors numbers illustrate how high the level was in match, really impressive numbers from both players.

This match could've went either way on the day, Djokovic had the slight edge mentally to take that 5th set. Statistically, it also shows he had Federer under more trouble on serve with 15 break points despite how well Federer served.

2015 Wimbledon Final - Djokovic in the zone

Going into the 2015 Wimbledon Final, Djokovic was in imperious form. However, he did have to pull himself back from 2 sets down against Kevin Anderson in the 4th round. He would win this title and the next 3 slams after that to create the 'Nole Slam', holding all 4 Grand Slams at once (non-calendar year).

This match statistically shows a similar trend to their previous Wimbledon meetings. Federer didn't get as many Aces as he did the year before but did a better job at winning points on his second serve. Djokovic was just more consistent and had that mental strength on key points which helped him overcome an excellent Federer display. 16 Unforced errors in a game of this magnitude is a very impressive number.

2019 Wimbledon Final - Federer's 9th or Djokovic's 5th

As tennis fans we have been so lucky to have these greats playing against each other, in what seemingly are rivalries that will never end. They will come to an end one day and so we should savour every one as if it's the last (you may have heard that before).

Federer

Pros

Federer is playing as good as ever on grass and has us asking the question 'is he immortal?'. His Semi-Final win over Nadal was very impressive and he really looked to be in control despite a hiccup in the second set when things went a little awry.

His serving was great, he was aggressive on the return and the stats back it up. At 68% on first serves and winning 62% on his second serve meant Nadal really struggled to break, especially when it mattered. 51 Winners and 27 Unforced errors to Nadal's 32 and 25 respectively helps sum up the contest.

To beat Djokovic he needs to maintain those service levels he showed against Nadal in sets 1, 3 and 4 and would like to avoid the dip in set 2 which saw him lose to a 6-1 scoreline. Djokovic in the 2015 Final had a delta of 30 points in his favour when you subtract the unforced errors from the winners. If Federer can hit this sort of number, he will be in a very strong position to prevail.

Cons

A big factor and forgetting the stats for a moment is that Djokovic has won his past four matches against Federer and eight of the past 10. Some of these victories seem to come to down sheer belief on the really big points. Djokovic will feel confident he can continue his dominance over Federer in recent years.

Djokovic is most likely the best returner in the history of the game. This puts Federer under huge pressure when serving as he knows anything less than perfect it is coming back at him. The stats show once Federer and Djokovic begin to rally, it is Djokovic that comes out on top more often.

Djokovic

Pros

Djokovic is defending champion, has been dominating Federer over the past 5-6 years in the Head to Head and looks to be close to his best. As alluded to, being the best returner in the game he will be relentless on Federer's serve to get those decisive breaks that can take him to glory. Djokovic has been aggressive on returns throughout the tournament, racking up 71 break points and converting on 34 (48%). He leads the tournament in return games won (34 of 89, 38%). The 32-year-old has been efficient in conserving energy, spending 12 hours and 54 minutes on court to reach the semi-finals.

His serve is also on point this tournament and he has held serve in 86 of 92 service games (93%), saving 15 of 24 break points. The World No.1 has only been broken twice in his past four matches.

Cons

He hasn't really been tested to date and Federer has that battle with Nadal which means he has acclimatised to the levels we only see when these big three meet. He also seems more human than when he was at his peak (2015/16 Nole Slam). In his Semi-Final against Bautista Agut he hit 42 Winners to 29 Unforced errors and by his standards that is a lot of unforced errors. Even in his dominant win over Goffin in the quarters he hit 24 Winners to 17 Unforced errors. Long story short, he doesn't his as many winner v unforced as he did in his prime. Against the immortal Federer this could be exploited and see him lose his crown.

Prediction - Federer in 4 Sets

The stats still point the finger at a Djokovic victory. But we know stats, whilst being a very good indicator, don't always predict the obvious outcome.

If Federer can get his service stats up to and beyond their level in the 2014 Final, he will be in a very good position to cause an upset. He is hitting his backhand harder and flatter than ever before and can keep rallies to a minimum by hitting big winners. This will frustrate Djokovic who will be battling the 14,979 Wimbledon capacity crowd (minus his team plus a few others) and feed Federer's focus to get to 9 Wimbledon crowns and an unprecedented 21 Grand Slams - solidifying his status at the G.O.A.T.

The GOAT battle is still alive.. Federer v Nadal

2017-06-11T22:42:00.001+01:00

After today's easy win for Nadal, he now sits at 15 Grand Slam wins and only 3 behind Federer.

Nadal wins his 10th Roland Garros title, another record!

We all love the 'greatest of all time' debates in sport but in tennis being individual is a little more clean cut than team sports such as football... or is it?

How do we begin to compare the greatest tennis players of all time? I mean we would expect Nadal or Federer to easily defeat Bjorn Borg or Rod Laver if they used the physical tools of their respective eras. Sport evolves and to call out the greatest of all time is always a hypothetical or statistical argument, but something that can never be proven no matter how emotional the debate becomes.

In tennis circles, there is a rare concurrency in views that the greatest players in the history of the sport are still active.. very active based on the last two Grand Slam results. We usually wait until players finish out their careers so we can then apply our 'objectivity' to their careers in comparison to the other greats that went before.

What makes this rivalry so great, is that if we look at ingredients of greatness both players have overflowing quantities of all key elements of that 'greatness' recipe AND they've been in battle against each other for well over a decade.

Who has the most Grand Slam titles?
The statistics alone throw up some interesting seeds for any debate. The obvious one is 'who has won the most slams?'. Right now Federer is in the lead with 18 so end of debate obviously! Whilst only a fool would disregard Nadal's chances of adding a few more, the question is can he win 3 or 4? At the same time, Federer will feel he can add to his resume with his sights firmly set on SW19 as well as being one of the favourites in New York. His form on the Melbourne hard courts was a new aggressive Federer, almost providing the catalyst for what the next evolution of tennis may look like. Aggressive offense worked very well for Ostapenko in the Ladies Final at RG and had a sort of Federer-esque all-or-nothing flavour. It is a style that also works very well for the next big thing Dominic Thiem.. until he meets a true King of tennis. As a tennis fan, I like this style and I would guess I am not alone. Wawrinka is another proponent of this style and until today's defeat he had a 3 from 3 wins in Slam finals, not a bad return (no pun intended).

Federer on his own with 18 Grand Slam titles

Head-to-head
Statistically we could look at head-to-head, where Nadal leads Federer 23 wins to 14 which is a 62% win ratio. That should settle the argument, shouldn't it?
Let's break that down further by looking at clay v other surfaces. 15 of the 37 matches they've contested took place on clay with Nadal winning a staggering 13. Federer managed just two victories on clay against Nadal and neither of these where at RG.
So if take the clay stats out of the equation we are looking at a 12-10 head-to-head lead in favour of the Fed-Express.

So conclusion: Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time and Federer is the greatest player of all time? Not so fast..

If we use the head-to-head stats there is another player in the mix. Djokovic leads Federer 23 to 22 in wins and he leads Nadal 26-24. So now we have a player who has a winning head-to-head record against the two greatest of all time! Additionally, these wins were accrued over a significant period with a huge number of matches played. Djokovic has played Nadal 50 times, this is 13 more matches than Federer against Nadal. This may come as a shock as we always view the Nadal v Federer battles with fond wonder in terms of greatness but also the sheer number of times they dueled over many years. Djokovic has played Federer 45 times, again more times than Federer has played Nadal.

Impact on the Sport
If we look at their overall impact to tennis, Federer has arguably made the biggest impact. Arguably he inspired the likes of Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray) to take their games to his level and subsequently invite them to the debate. In terms of bringing tennis to those outside the hard core fans, the only other comparison to Federer is Bjorn Borg. Borg has been thanked by contemporaries like McEnroe as well as players in the generation that followed like Becker and Edberg for taking tennis mainstream and triggering a much bigger payday for winning at the major events as well as the endorsements that went hand in hand.

All of these players have a variety of different sorts of records to their credit but all of those extra stats will only add to the debate and complexity rather than justify who wins.

To conclude, I will finish by saying that if you declare a player as the greatest of all time, this will boil down to opinion. Whilst Federer's 18 Grand Slams puts him in a statistical stronghold to say the GOAT title is his, as we've seen even in an individual sport the water is easily muddied.

The Big Four has become the Big Two - US Open 2016

2016-09-02T08:05:00.001+01:00

There is no question that the Big Four of tennis is no longer. Whilst Federer and Nadal are still active and producing high level tennis, they don't have that edge anymore to win slams (hope they prove me wrong).

The 'Big Two' has definitely been the case for the 2016 season as Murray and Djokovic have played each other in two finals at Australia and RG with Murray having made all 3 to date.

Including the US Open Final of 2011, when Djokovic lost to Nadal, either Djokovic or Murray have been in 21 of the 24 finals since then. They have met in 7 of those finals and Djokovic leads the H2H 5-2. It feels like Murray's current form will see him take his fourth career Grand Slam in New York and I see Djokovic making the final, this will take the series to 5-3. The Lendl factor has by no coincidence changed Murray's fortune in their second stint together, he is such a calming influence on Murray and enables Murray to play his best tennis. In hindsight looking at the final at RG, the absence of Lendl now looks very obvious. Murray played amazing tennis in the first set, but as Djokovic got momentum with a very partisan crowd, Murray got very frustrated and lost his way mentally. Lendl in his corner would've have been a stabilising force which may have seen Murray take the title.. who knows?

Grand Slam Finals since 2010

When it comes to Murray and Djokovic YTD the stats don't really tell the full story. They don't tell us that Djokovic has struggled since Wimbledon with a mixture of physical and mental issues. To be honest Djokovic was looking so imperious in the first part of the year it was a relief for us mere mortals to see him struggle a bit. He was machine like in his execution of matches with a belief that I don't think I have seen before (perhaps Federer in his prime). That belief has taken a wobble lately, which will give Murray hope that he can bag his fourth slam.

On the stats below which are stats from all matches YTD, they paint a picture that shows us why Djokovic currently has the No. 1 ranking. This is highlighted most obviously by the Win % of 94.1 against Murray's 87.7. Their slam records have been so good this year that the difference isn't negligible. The only blip coming at Wimbledon when Querrey shocked everyone by putting the Serb out in 4 sets. A stat from that match which highlights the dip in form was that Djokovic won only 65% of points on his 1st serve, compared to his average of 73%. I don't want to take away from Querrey as he played some great tennis, but Djokovic wasn't at his best. In general when you look at the stats in that match, in almost every area Djokovic was well below par.

Djokovic v Murray 2016 YTD (2nd SEP)

The stats always make interesting reading when comparing two players. I think if both players are in form and are playing their best tennis, you would expect Djokovic to win the majority of matches. However, when we look at the 2016 stats, there is very little to separate the two overall.

I think based on how both players are playing in the US Open so far, as stated before it looks likely Murray will make his fourth Grand Slam final of the year which would be an amazing feat. The great Federer achieved this in 2006, 2007 and 2009 and Djokovic managed to do so in 2015. Djokovic had made 6 finals in a row at RG this year and has been in 17 of the last 24.

I predict Murray to win the US Open. However, I am still unsure about what impact Djokovic will make in the tournament but it would be extremely foolish to rule him out. Interestingly if Djokovic gets as far as a final and gets through this rocky patch he's experiencing I wouldn't doubt the man taking Murray in the final.

It bodes well for a very exciting US Open but also looks like the Big Two have the momentum which will see further domination in 2017.

In terms of players that can upset the status quo, I would look at:

Nadal - strange adding Nadal to this list as he was a dominant player in the very recent 'Big Four' era.
DelPo - knows how to win in New York and showed great form in Rio
Wawrinka - always has the potential if he can find his A game but his form has been up and down this year
Thiem - the upcoming star made the RG semi-final and looks like a big star for the future
Kyrgios - unstable mentality but has the talent to cause upsets

The Big Four is no longer a thing, Murray v Raonic preview

2016-07-09T00:54:00.000+01:00

Only a day away to the final day of Wimbledon 2016, arguably the most important day in the tennis calendar. The final will see Andy Murray, one of that famous big four, take on Milos Raonic. This will be only their second meeting on grass, with the last just 3 weeks ago at Queen's Club. That match was very close and the level of tennis was very high, a feel for things to come.

Big serve
There is no doubt the big server still enjoys the benefits that grass serves up (no pun intended). The ball slides on the bounce and therefore a player such as Raonic will expect many easy points on his serve. So far this Wimbledon he has managed 137 aces in 6 matches. At Queen's Club the serving stats were very good for both players in their final. Murray served 74% on his 1st serve in that final, compared to 65% against Berdych and 61% against Tsonga is his last two Wimbledon matches. He will want to get that % up to Queen's level to ensure he protects himself for getting broke.

Murray Raonic

Murray return

There is no question that Murray is one of the best returners in the history of tennis, perhaps only Agassi and Djokovic could be deemed as better. His returning ability in vital moments at Queen's got him the victory, of which Murray admitted it was a bit of a guessing game after the match: "I guessed on a few serves and gained a bit of confidence on the returns but he's got a huge serve and sometimes it's just too good."

To highlight Murray's last words on Raonic's serve being sometimes too good, see the top ace makers in this year's Wimbledon to date:

Raonic is averaging almost 23 Aces per match which equates to almost a free set. Against Federer in the semi-final he managed exactly that number. Federer's challenge faded in the fifth and a lack of match practice this year appeared to show in the closing stages. On the other hand the 25 year old Raonic looks extremely fit and has an impressive and sizeable physique.

Murray's guess is as good as anyone
The Murray guessing game in Sunday's final will likely decide who will win the Wimbledon trophy. The expectation is that Murray will get enough break points and breaks to ensure he wins the title. However, I wouldn't underestimate the improvements Raonic has made to his all round game. He hit 75 winners to Federer's 40 in the semi-final and showed he has a fine tennis brain in some of the longer rallies against the Swiss artist.

Murray to get his second
Overall, the scene looks set for Murray to claim his second Wimbledon trophy and his third slam in total. If anyone deserves another slam it has to be Murray. This year his form has been as good as ever, and only for a certain Djokovic he would likely have many more than 2 slams to date.
I also think Federer's fitness levels helped Raonic as that match wore on. The 5 setter against Cilic had taken it out of the 34 year old's legs. Murray will not tire, he seems to get stronger as matches wear on, a quality he shares with Djokovic. No doubt Murray will feel pressure at certain times and the one sided crowd will be a reminder of the magnitude of the opportunity.
Raonic has nothing to lose and should enjoy his first slam final. His serve means he will have a shot at the title and his improving groundstrokes will cause Murray concern.
In the end I see Murray winning this in 4 sets, with Raonic taking one of the sets in a breaker.

More information on their previous head to heads can be found on the ATP site here.

Good luck to the Scott and the Canadian, should be another memorable final at the famous Centre Court.

Wimbledon Final: Djokovic's science defeats Federer's artistry

2015-07-13T14:33:00.000+01:00

The Wimbledon 2015 Final saw Novak end Roger's dream of an eighth Wimbledon title, and in the process claiming his 3rd SW19 title and his 9th Grand Slam in total. This puts him at 5 on the all time list of Open Era champions.

List of players with most Grand Slam titles in the Open Era:

Rank	Player	Total
1	Roger Federer	17
2	Pete Sampras	14
2	Rafael Nadal	14
4	Björn Borg	11
5	Novak Djokovic	9

The first two sets were very close, with the two opposing styles producing some great tennis. It was really in the third set where the scientific approach from Novak began to wear down the Federer challenge. It was clear that Novak's consistency and precision took it's toll on Roger physically but more importantly psychologically.

Shut out

Early in the 3rd set there was short break to get the covers on and that appeared to be the final turning point to end the challenge from Roger. The artist's errors began to grow in numbers as he felt the need to give that little bit extra on each ball. This was largely due to Novak's pressure and consistency. Everyone had talked about Roger's serve as the weapon that would underpin his quest for 2015 Wimbledon glory, but again this was neutralised by Novak's pressure. Andy Murray in the semi final didn't put the same pressure on the return and additionally his second serve gave Roger many chances to attack. Novak's serve, especially on big points, didn't give Roger the same opportunities. Whenever Roger had those half chances, he tried too hard and the unforced error count grew.

Crowd silenced

The Wimbledon crowd were overwhelmingly in favour of Roger, but Novak's play and the break for to get the covers on for a brief period seemed to dampen the crowd's spirits. The crowd were never really given the same hope as they'd experienced in sets 1 and 2. In the end for the Federer fans it was an anticlimactic conclusion and in hindsight more inevitable than had probably been thought (rather stupidly I too had underestimated Novak's ability to execute).

A notable difference between this match and the Roland Garros final last month where Novak lost in 4 sets to Stan Wawrinka came down to power. Stan's artistry was backed with a lot of power, so those stylish one handed backhands down the line were never coming back. Roger no longer (or maybe never had) has that type of power on the backhand side as we've seen from Stan in the past few seasons. As a result it made it even more difficult for him to get points on the board.

Djokovic to dominate

With the decline of Nadal and less so of Federer and Murray, Djokovic's serious challengers in the slams are few and far between. Stan Wawrinka appears to be Djokovic's number 1 nemesis in tennis right now, but Stan's consistency means we are never sure how far he will go in any given slam.

If we refer back to the all time leader's list of Grand Slam titles in the Open Era, it is likely that Djokovic will surpass Sampras and Rafa who sit at 14.

Having turned 28 in May this year, it isn't hard to imagine Novak having at least another 4 years at the top as he is arguably the greatest athlete in the sport's history. For example, between now and the end of the 2018 season there are 13 slams to play for. It isn't too difficult to imagine Novak winning 6 or 7 or possibly more. If he wins 6 that takes him to 15 and just 2 away from Federer. I wouldn't bet against Novak equalling or even surpassing Roger's amazing record. What is interesting, when we compare him to the other leaders he is relatively old on the day of his 9th slam victory.

Age when they won their 9th Grand Slam:

- Bjorg - Roland Garros on 8th June, 1980. Age: 24

- Sampras - Australian Open on 26th January 1997. Age: 25

- Federer - US Open on 10th September 2006. Age: 25

- Nadal - US Open on 13th September 2010. Age: 24

- Djokovic - Wimbledon on 12th June 2015. Age: 28

Wimbledon Final 2015: Federer v Djokovic or Art v Science

2015-07-11T22:32:00.001+01:00

Wimbledon 2015 has produced a repeat of the 2014 Final with Roger Federer taking on the World No. 1 Novak Djokovic. Last year Djokovic took the win with a display of supreme athleticism and consistency in a 5 set classic (6-7, 6-4, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4).

Art v Science?
Last month I attended the Men's Final at Roland Garros when the other top Swiss Stan Wawrinka defeated Novak in 4 sets. This was one of those occasions when the line between art and science was evidently clear. Stan (the artist) was unpredictable and every shot seemed to be a blur between instincts and creativity. Some were winners and some were.. well, not winners. Novak (the scientist) on the other hand was predictable, calculated, measured, analytical, supremely athletic etc. The issue for Novak was that his meticulous conditioning, skills and preparation could never prepare him for the artist at his best. The artist produces moments of genius, moments you can't prepare for in training as they happen in an instant - unpredictable, unimaginable and soul destroying for the person who's calculations don't add up anymore. I'm not saying Novak doesn't have some artistic genius in his locker but if you see art and science on a spectrum, Novak is more scientist and less artist.

The Artist - Roger Federer
In tomorrow's final, Roger will enter Centre Court for the 10th time on final Sunday at SW19. If Stan is an elite modern day artist, Roger is Van Gogh, Dali, Matisse and Picasso combined - unquestionably the greatest.
Like Novak, Roger isn't all art but he is more art than science. His battles with Rafa were arguably the most legendary duals in tennis history, as again the styles of art v science came head to head in many great finals.
In 2014 the bit that Roger lacked was that little bit of science to see him take the title. He seemed tired when it came to 5 sets and being a 100% fit is science with very little art. This year Roger looks much fitter and seems to be in as good a shape as ever, even though he is at the supposed old age of 33.

Art meets Science - The Perfect Storm
Roger's first serve is the perfect balance of the two ends of the spectrum. The great artist produces serves that his opponent simply can't read, just ask Andy Murray after their semi final. It seems Roger decides where he will place his serve almost at the point when his racket strings connect with the yellow fur. The science is in the fact that his first serve % was 73% against Simon in the Qtr Finals and 76% against Andy Murray in the Semis.

The Scientist - Novak Djokovic
Novak enters tomorrow as the favourite and rightly so. The stats are in his favour this year and the defending champion is bringing his 'A-game' to every match in the tournament apart from a scare against Kevin Anderson in the fourth round.
Novak, as stated previously, is not all science. You can't be the number 1 tennis player in the World without having some artistry and genius in your armory. The thing is, when he meets the World's elite who sit on the artist side of the fence - that is when things get uncomfortable for him. In that final at Roland Garros against Stan, you could tell he was very frustrated that his tactics weren't enough, his best shots weren't winning the rallies. He was hitting the ball cleanly and playing extremely well, but when it wasn't winning and his calculations weren't adding up he panicked. He didn't know what to do as Wawrinka continued to bombard the Serb with shots that couldn't be calculated, couldn't be predicted and as a result couldn't be returned.

So Who will win?
The 2015 Wimbledon final looks set for Roger to lift his 8th Wimbledon trophy. He looks fitter, stronger, more confident than last year and the stats on his serve highlight that. In last year's semi against Milos Raonic and in the quarters against Wawrinka, Roger served 65% on first serves in both matches. In the final he managed to take that to 69% which was a big factor in taking Novak to the wire.
To sum up the great artist has brushed up (no pun intended) on the science side of his game. On the other hand Novak was at his peak last year, and that peak is arguably as high as he can go. Don't get me wrong, Novak's peak is at an altitude with some of the game's all time greats. However, with Roger being the greatest artist of them all he has time and time again redefined how high the summit can truly reach.
At 33, he looks like he is ready to do that again in his favourite court, the greatest gallery for the greatest artistic work the tennis world has ever seen.

Big Four no longer? Not just yet..

2014-07-07T13:59:00.002+01:00

After another amazing Wimbledon Final yesterday, the question this tournament was are we seeing the end of the Big Four? Well two of the 'Big Four' just played out one of the greatest 5 set Wimbledon Finals in recent memory.

It's worth taking a look at the Grand Slam champions since 2003. That year saw Federer win his maiden slam at Wimbledon when he defeated Mark Philippoussis, 7–6, 6–2, 7–6. Fast forward to the current day and 44 Grand Slam tournaments later, the breakdown (Big Four only) is as follows:

Roger Feder: 25 Finals, 17 Wins
Rafael Nadal: 20 Finals, 14 Wins
Novak Djokovic: 14 Finals, 7 Wins
Andy Murray: 7 Finals, 2 Wins

Between these guys they have won 40 of the past 45 Grand Slams spanning 11 years. However, the Big Four wasn't truly born until 2008 when Djokovic won the Australian and Murray was a runner-up at the US Open that year to Federer. It was the Big One (Federer), then Big Two (add Nadal) and then Big Four.

2003	Andre Agassi (8/8)	Juan Ferrero	SUI Roger Federer (1/17)	Andy Roddick
2004	Roger Federer (2/17)	Gastón Gaudio	Roger Federer (3/17)	Roger Federer (4/17)
2005	Marat Safin (2/2)	Rafael Nadal (1/14)	Roger Federer (5/17)	Roger Federer (6/17)
2006	Roger Federer (7/17)	Rafael Nadal (2/14)	Roger Federer (8/17)	Roger Federer (9/17)
2007	Roger Federer (10/17)	Rafael Nadal (3/14)	Roger Federer (11/17)	Roger Federer (12/17)
2008	Novak Djokovic (1/7)	Rafael Nadal (4/14)	Rafael Nadal (5/14)	Roger Federer (13/17)
2009	Rafael Nadal (6/14)	Roger Federer (14/17)	Roger Federer (15/17)	Juan Martín del Potro
2010	Roger Federer (16/17)	Rafael Nadal (7/14)	Rafael Nadal (8/14)	Rafael Nadal (9/14)
2011	Novak Djokovic (2/7)	Rafael Nadal (10/14)	Novak Djokovic (3/7)	Novak Djokovic (4/7)
2012	Novak Djokovic (5/7)	Rafael Nadal (11/14)	Roger Federer (17/17)	Andy Murray (1/2)
2013	Novak Djokovic (6/7)	Rafael Nadal (12/14)	Andy Murray (2/2)	Rafael Nadal (13/14)
2014	Stanislas Wawrinka	Rafael Nadal (14/14)	Novak Djokovic (7/7)

Source: Wikipedia

Actually, apart from Wawrinka and Del Potro's solitary wins, the Big Four have dominated and continue to do so. There is no question however, that we are beginning to see a slight demise in some Big Four performances at the slams (for example Federer has only won 2 of his 17 slams since 2010).

Let's look at the semi finalists for the past 7 Slams from beginning of 2013:

2013

Australian Open 2013: Djokovic v. Ferrer, Murray v. Federer (3/4)

Roland Garros (French Open) 2013: Djokovic v. Nadal, Ferrer v. Tsonga (2/4)

Wimbledon 2013: Djokovic v. Del Potro, Murray v. Janowicz (2/4)

US Open 2013: Djokovic v. Wawrinka, Nadal v. Gasquet (2/4)

2014

Australian Open 2014: Nadal v. Federer, Wawrinka v. Berdych (2/4)

Roland Garros (French Open) 2014: Nadal v. Murray, Djokovic v. Gulbis (3/4)

Wimbledon 2014: Djokovic v. Dimitrov, Federer v. Raonic (2/4)

In fact the last time the Big Four took all 4 semi-final berths was at Australia in 2012. With Wawrinka's breakthrough in January, and the emergence of Dimitrov and Raonic at Wimbledon it would seem like the Big Four's dominance is in more danger than ever. Can the new stars take the US Open? Or will we have to wait until 2015 to see new names emerge as GS winners. Whatever happens, this Golden Era of tennis is still strong today and a privilege to watch.

Match Point Djokovic v. Federer at Wimbledon 2014 (forgive shakiness as I'm not a pro :))

Big Two make Australian Open Final 2013

2013-01-27T04:50:00.000+00:00

As I predicted in my last post it would be a Murray and Djokovic Final in Australia, also citing Murray's triumph over Federer in the semi (wish I had've put my money where my blog is).

There is no doubt in the tennis world that Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray have played the best tennis in the past 6 months. Many predicted after Murray's breakthrough victory at Flushing Meadows that this was the dawn of tennis' new big rivalry.

Rafa and Roger have served up the greatest rivalry in tennis history that spans back to 2004. Having played 8 Grand Slam finals (Rafa leads 6-2) and winning 28 titles between them, makes it the greatest. The question is can Rafa or Federer make it to any more finals? The chances of them both making a final against each other seems even less likely. That's mainly due to the rise of Novak, and more recently Andy.
Could the greatest tennis rivalry ever be handing a baton to another of the greatest rivalries? The fact that this top four has existed has been amazing for tennis fans. The overlap years were remarkable, however it appears that it's moving to a Big Two. Rafa can come back and win but question marks exist on his injuries that plague him.

The Big Two stats:
Overall head-to-head: Djokovic leads 10-7
On hardcourts: Djokovic 8-6
In finals: Murray 4-3
In Grand Slams: Djokovic 2-1
In Australian Open: Djokovic 2-0
In Grand Slam finals: 1-1

It is interesting to note that Andy has a better record in final meetings. What makes these rivalries so interesting is hat numbers can go out the window. In my previous post in these two before the US Open the stats favoured Novak but I picked Andy to win as I had a 'feeling' he would.

Last year they met in the Australian Open (Novak won in 5 sets) and US Open (Murray won in 5 sets). So all even, right? What I found most interesting last year which was a glimpse into their rivalry for 2013 was in London at the ATP World Tour Finals. It was round robin match so shouldn't haven't been so important, but it was. Andy was in better form and showed that by taking set 1 6-4. Novak somehow got into Andy's head with some jesters to the crowd and taking away the focus from the tennis itself. He managed to win that very tight match in 3 sets even though Andy played the better tennis one might argue. The difference was in those match defining points, Novak has the ability to come through when it matters, no stat can show this.

To conclude I predict Novak in 4 sets, as I believe he is actually back to his best form. This time I will put my money where my blog is.
It's going to be another epic final, thanks guys for the entertainment you provide. Good luck!

Big 4 becomes Big 3 for Australian Open

2013-01-12T12:28:00.002+00:00

As we enter the first slam of 2013, let's have a look at a very exciting year ahead for the Big Four...or will it be the Big Three?

Novak Djokovic

Novak enters the 2013 Australian Open as World Number 1 and favourite to retain his title. He is going for his 4th win in Melbourne and his 6th Slam in total (same number of slam wins as Becker and Edberg). Having attended Novak's last big final at the ATP World Tour finals in London, he finished the 2012 season in style. His biggest strength now is belief and confidence to turn situations in his favour.

Against Federer and Murray in that tournament Novak showed great guile, both in terms of play and psychology to get the edge in these victories. For that reason I see Novak dominating 2013, potentially getting the 'Grand Slam'.

Australian Open Predictions
1st Round v. Paul-Henri Mathieu:
Head to Head: First meeting
Prediction: This will be a straight sets victory for Novak.
The last time Novak lost a first round match at the slams was at the 2006 Australian Open to American Paul Goldstein.
How far will he go in Melbourne? Winner by defeating Murray in Final

Roger Federer

Roger enters the 2013 season with the same questions that were asked at the beginning of 2012: Can he win Slams? Is this his last year on the tour? Well last year the answers to these questions were Yes and No respectively. Having already referred to that final in London, Roger showed he is definitely still one of the best. His issue against Djokovic seems to be that psychological aspect of the game, he fears Novak. This year I don't see Roger winning any slams, but I don't think it will be his last year on the tour either.
Australian Open Predictions

1st Round v. Benoit Paire.
Head to Head: 1-0 to Roger, that victory coming at Basel 2012 (6-2, 6-2)
Prediction: This will be a straight sets victory for Roger.
The last time Roger lost a first round match at the slams was at the 2003 French Open to Peruvian Luis Horna.
How far will he go in Melbourne? Semi-Final defeat at the hands of Murray

Andy Murray

Andy is in a great position as he enters the first slam of 2013 as the winner of the last slam of 2012. Last season showed Andy coming of age by winning at the Olympics and the US Open. Reaching the Wimbledon final seemed to be the catalyst to push him over the line and claim his maiden slam. Andy's biggest challenge in Australia is clearly Novak Djokovic, and likely for the rest of the year and career. I think Wimbledon will be the big one for Andy in 2013 and he proved last year he can win on grass. It will be a fascinating season with some great battles on the horizon. Andy can potentially win the Australian, Wimbledon and even the US Open, and by the same token may win none.
Australian Open Predictions
1st Round v. Robin Haase
Head to Head: 1-1. Having attended their last meeting at the 2011 US Open, Haase had Andy in all sorts of trouble taking a 2 sets to 0 lead. Andy won out in 5 in the end.
Prediction: Andy in 4 sets.
The last time Andy lost a first round match at the slams was at the 2008 Australian Open to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. With the benefit of hindsight that was a tough first round by any standard.
How far will he go in Melbourne? Runner-Up to Djokovic

Rafa Nadal

No question about it, tennis is not the same without Rafa making up the 'Big Four' at the slam events. He hasn't played competitively since June when he lost in a shock defeat to Rosol at Wimbledon. Following Rafa's progress through rehabilitation on Facebook suggested he would back in action at Melbourne until another late withdrawal. Tennis needs Rafa back. What does 2013 hold for Rafa? At this point, no one could be sure what the season holds for him. It is hard to see him winning any of the slams other than Roland Garros if he can get fit and soon. He bounced back in 2010 after a tough season in 2009 with knee problems, which stopped him defending his Wimbledon title that year. It would seem that this time round those injuires are worse and he is 3 years older now. Would be great to Rafa back competing, even if not competing for titles.

Pretenders for Big Four:

With Rafa's absence, could someone else move into the top 4 in 2013?

Del Potro - only person other than the Big Four to win a slam since 2005.
Tsonga - been knocking on the door but lacks the relentless consistency the elite display
Ferrer - unlike Tsonga is super consistent but seems to lack that 'A game' to win slams
Berdych - like Tsonga and Ferrer been consistently in that next group of players, seems to lack some craftiness in those big matches

US Open Final: What do the stats suggest?

2012-09-10T19:59:00.002+01:00

As we enter today's final of the US Open, Novak Djokovic goes in as slight favourite. Djokovic is the defending Champion and leads the Head to Head with Murray 8-6.

Interestingly, they have only met twice in the Slams and that was at the 2011 Australian Open final, and again this year in Melbourne at the Semi Final stage. In that 2011 final Djokovic stormed to a 6-4, 6-2, 6-3 victory and Murray never really got into the match. Djokovic did go on to dominate 2011 with some of the most amazing tennis we have seen. This year's semi final at Australia was a much tighter affair finishing 6-3, 3-6, 6-7(4), 6-1, 7-5. This was an epic match and Murray showed he was able to match the Serb for the vast majority of the 4 hours 50 minutes battle.

If we look at the stats below, it would suggest Djokovic is also showing to be in slightly better shape than Murray. When compared side by side in 2012 Slam averages, Djokovic edges Murray in pretty much all of the key categories.


Grand Slam Averages 2012(completed tournaments)

When we compare there averages from 2011 to 2012, you can see Djokovic's form overall has dipped a little bit. Murray's on the other hand has seen some improvement. They key observation I would make from Murray's stats is that his 1st serve percentage has increased slightly (2.03%). However, Djokovic's 1st serve percentage has dropped 3.3% in 2012. This could be on the reasons why he hasn't been so dominant.

Averages for 2011 v 2012

In Murray's favour is the fact he won their last meeting at the London 2012 Olympics 7-5, 7-5. This time it is a best of five so expect a battle.

The stats would suggest for Murray to win the 2012 US Open he needs to throw caution to the wind and remain calm as he has done so well since the Wimbledon final. Hitting winners on big points is something he did superbly at the Olympics, and will need to produce those moments again at Arthur Ashe.

Prediction: Murray in 4

Interesting fact: If Murray wins it will be the first time since 2003 that we will have four different winners of the four Slams. Big four share the Big four 2012, will that be the case?

Olympic Gold: Is Murray moving to top of Big Four?

2012-08-06T14:05:00.001+01:00

Andy Murray's destruction of Roger Federer at Centre Court yesterday was evidence of his potential to win big. This was something that Federer is not used to experiencing, this was a super performance by Murray. Maybe he can move on to top the Big Four, and maybe even do it by the end of 2012.

Murray played yesterday with pure focus and looked very composed for the full match. This was his first ever victory over Federer in a best of 5 sets, only giving away a measly 7 games to games greatest ever player.

The Wimbledon final was hyped so much that there was huge pressure on the Scot's shoulders. In that final Federer produced some genius shots at key moments to win out in the end. However, what Murray showed yesterday is that when relaxed he can hit those big winners at the key points too.

These are the big points that separate the Grand Slam winners. Djokovic in the past 12 months has produced so many of those, the best being the forehand at last year's US Open when 40-15 down on Federer's first serve. We have seen numerous big plays from Rafa and Federer in the past, which have contributed to the 28 Grand Slams they have won between them. These big point winners go hand in hand with true self belief.

Murray among giants of Tennis, Del Potro in size and Federer for stature

The Olympic Gold Medal for Murray was a coming of age. It may not be a Grand Slam but it is now a huge thing to win in Tennis, and it will continue to get more important as years go by one feels.

This win will give Murray the belief to go on and win some Grand Slams and the potential for him is huge. There is no reason why he can't win 4 or 5 in the next few years. He definitely has the talent, skills and physicality, yesterday he showed he the mentality too.

Nadal closing on Djokovic in Finals

2012-06-10T14:28:00.003+01:00

The stats would tell us that Nadal has been getting closer in the last three Grand Slam finals against Djokovic. These are the 2011 finals at Wimbledon and the US Open, and the 2012 Australian Open final.

Below are the stats showing how the matches are longer and Nadal is winning a bigger % of the points.

With today's Roland Garros final on Clay, I have a feeling this one will go to Nadal. The question is if it does, how will Djokovic respond?

Let's enjoy today's match between two of the games greatest, and good luck to both guys.

Click on the image to enlarge:

Djokovic Grand Slam averages 2012 v 2011, so far..

2012-06-05T14:47:00.001+01:00

With the Australian Open being the only completed Grand Slam so far in 2012, this comparison will be more complete when Roland Garros finishes on Sunday. So the stats below only show the Australian Open matches.

I have taken the Big Four and compared their averages for 2011 to their performance at Australia in 2012.

First, lets look at the World Number 1, Djokovic. It is interesting how his match time increased significantly. He had those two epic five set matches in the semi and also in the final.

It also shows that he wasn't as strong on winning points on his serve, but made up for that when returning. His first serve percentage dropped significantly at Australia, which may have attributed to his longer matches. On overall points won his percentage increased, so it showed he was still in top form with the stats proving again why he is ranked number 1.

Grand Slam Averages 2011 The Big Four

2012-02-12T17:18:00.000+00:00

I have compiled averages from all matches played at the slams in 2011. It is interesting how the points won averages (%) are in order of how the rankings finished for the year.

When you look at Djokovic you can see he has the best averages overall, as his three victories would have suggested. Djokovic and Federer are the guys that impress the most when it comes to percentage of service points won, with Federer having a slight edge. In terms of percentage of return points won it is Nadal who is the strongest with Djokovic a close second. They both win more than 60% of points on their opponents second serve, which is very impressive. These numbers express what we already know in terms of both players ability to outrally their opponents from the baseline. It also means for Murray or Federer to get victories, a high first serve percentage is vital.

The big question is can Djokovic keep this level going in 2012. His averages when winning this years Australian Open dipped slightly compared to the averages below. Nadal and Murray both had chances to beat the Serb, and the gap was minimal on both occassions. I think if Djokovic can't raise his game to last year's levels, the others have a better chance to get their hands on silverware. One thing the stats don't show is bravery and ability to handle pressure on the big points. Djokovic has shown he is the strongest at present when it goes to the wire.

Grand Slam averages for all matches 2011

Djokovic wins his fifth, but is the gap closing?

2012-01-31T13:37:00.000+00:00

After an amazing 5 hour and 53 minute contest Novak Djokovic prevailed for the third successive time over Rafael Nadal in a Grand Slam final.

Djokovic accepts victory, while Nadal ponders what could have been

In 2011 Djokovic raised the bar and produced tennis that undermined Nadal's heavy topspin and general gameplan. At times in the Wimbledon and US Open finals, with Djokovic in the zone, it resembled Neo keeping the rogue Agent Smith at bay in The Matrix.

Nadal has been forced back to the drawing board to create a battleplan to get the number one ranking back. He has added weight to his racket and become more aggressive on the backhand side.

Despite the match being so close in the end on scoreline, Djokovic was the best player overall and thoroughly deserved the victory. Nadal's battling qualities were immense and who knows what would have happened if he had hit that easy backhand down the line at 4-2 in the fifth set (watch again on BBC site here).

I have compiled stats from their last three finals and the numbers would suggest Nadal is gaining ground on Djokovic. This sets us up for a very exciting 2012. Nadal has lost the crown as number one and is under threat to lose his title as the 'King of Clay'. Last year Djokovic showed he can handle Nadal's style on clay too. Nadal may be inwardly thankful to his old rival Federer for disposing of Djokovic in the semi-final at Roland Garros, otherwise we likely would be looking at Djokovic winning his fifth Slam in a row. As the stats show, Djokovic is finding it more difficult to beat Nadal in terms of the time it takes and percentage of points won/lost.

Relief! Djokovic knows they're closing in

Andy Murray has also closed the gap with the top three and The Big Four is well and truly out on their own. 2012 will mesmerise, guaranteed!

Interesting Grand Slam stats from 2011 for Federer and Nadal

2012-01-26T03:39:00.000+00:00

Very close in many ways..

As Federer and Nadal go into battle for the 29th time, their past throws up some interesting stats. Nadal leads the head to head 17-9 with 9 Grand Slams matches, out of which Federer has only won 2. His last victory came in one the five setter epic Wimbledon finals back in 2007.

2011 was supposedly a year in which Federer went into decline, but when broken down into plain numbers it doesn't seem that way at all. It is actually quite close overall, but one thing that may gain attention is how Nadal seems to work harder for his points. As shown below, Nadal took an average of 20 minutes more to finish a match. The numbers would also suggest Nadal was much more aggressive on the opponents second serve. However, Federer's serving stats are more solid and he would appear to get easier points on both first and second serves.

The coolest stat is the fact that they won the exact same percentage of points played over the four slams at 56.2% (Djokovic finished with an average 57.38 and Murray with 54.39).

Numbers for Grand Slam events 2011:

Murray's first serve percentage and it's impact

2012-01-26T00:33:00.000+00:00

Andy Murray will step into the Rod Laver Arena to face Novak Djokovic for their 11th meeting of their professional careers on Friday. Interestingly, this is only their second meeting in a Grand Slam. Their only other meeting at a Slam ended in a straight sets victory in last year's Australian Open final.

Having a look at first serve averages for both players from all matches played at last year's four Slams, the stats tell a very interesting story. The points won when first serve goes in is almost identical with only 0.02% of difference. This makes intriguing reading considering this average is taken over 27 matches for Djokovic (one walkover) and 25 for Murray.

The stats would tell us get if either of these guys gets a first serve in, they'll win 76.1 (give or take a tenth %) of those points. The trouble for Murray is that he got less than 60% of first serves in whilst Djokovic finished close to 70%.

	Djokovic	Murray
1st Serve %	68.01	59.46
1st Serve Points Won	76.09	76.11

If Murray wants to beat Djokovic and make it 1-1 in Grand Slam matchups, then he needs to find his rythmn on first serves. It is one of a number of important factors, but this one is certainly key.

More interesting stats to follow, so keep me a lookout.

Follow @Carlitostennis