But was he only one of the greatest? Or was he the greatest of them all?
It’s not difficult to declare a favorite player as the best ever and then find statistics to justify the argument. Let’s look at it from the other direction and first look at the numbers to see where they lead.
grand slam win
If there is any one number widely accepted as the ultimate measure of a great tennis player, it is the number of Grand Slam tournaments won. And there’s certainly a lot of logic behind it.
A Grand Slam title is the ultimate goal for most players: the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open attract the most attention and are the strongest fields and shower their winners with prize money and visibility. In men’s tennis, they are also known for the best-of-five set format, which is a longer test than regular tour events.
This is the simplest solution that most tennis fans know:
The Big Three (Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic) are above the rest of men’s tennis history as they do in many categories.
Nadal and Djokovic are both still playing, and could raise their totals; Both of them won three of the four Grand Slam singles titles this year.
grand slam performance
Reducing Grand Slam performance to binary – did he win or not? – is something of an oversimplification. It’s also important to win matches and advance in the tournament, no matter what Vince Lombardi says.
The scoring system may be debatable, but what if we award 6 points for a Grand Slam win, 3 for a runner-up, and 1 for a semi-final?
Now the players stack up like this:
If anything, it’s as close. And a slightly different scoring system can easily change the order.
For example, many fans consider the Olympics, in which tennis is staged every four years, to value a slam or near-slam-caliber tournament. Each player won an Olympic singles medal. Add 6 for Nadal’s gold, 3 for Federer’s silver and 1 for Djokovic’s bronze and you get a running close to a laugh: 171-171-170, with Nadal just one point behind.
All three men also lost an Olympic bronze medal match, and Djokovic did so twice. This equals the semi-final, which will take Djokovic one point ahead.
Grand Slam from another angle
Grand Slam victories alone do not account for early-round performances in the finals and semi-finals, nor does it factor into why Federer started earlier than the other two players and had more chances at Grand Slams. Both of those factors account for a simple win-loss record in Grand Slam events. By this measure:
Federer’s longevity counts against him here; A few early and late career losses reduce his win percentage. The same could happen at the end of Nadal and Djokovic’s careers if they stayed together.
Multifaceted talent
Winning on different surfaces is important to a player’s legacy. This is why Federer’s only Grand Slam victory on clay at the 2009 French Open meant so much to tennis fans.
So – and stay with us here – what if instead of adding up Grand Slam titles, we multiply them? This would give more points to players who won a variety of Grand Slams and penalize specialists. This would also give a score of 0 to someone who didn’t win all four, but luckily each of the Big Three did.
Djokovic’s comparative versatility gives him the edge here. Federer is only hurt by a win in Paris once, while Nadal’s astonishing 14 French Open victories thus far have little return.
other tournaments
Tennis is not just a Grand Slam, and perhaps the totality of men’s careers should be viewed as well.
In terms of win-loss records across all official events, they stack up:
The winning percentage is Nadal, Djokovic, Federer. By total wins, it’s Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
There’s more to consider here: Djokovic spent 373 weeks ranked No. 1 and ended seven different years there. Federer was at the top of the year at 310 weeks and five times, and Nadal 209 more times.
Federer won 103 Tour singles titles, Nadal won 92 and Djokovic won 88. (For once, another player won: Jimmy Connors, playing in a very different era, won 109 titles, something for those who want to make a stark contrast. For.)
Although some players and fans dismiss the Davis Cup, others view it as an important part of the tennis calendar. Nadal has an excellent record of 29-1 with .967 percent in Cup play. Djokovic is 38-7 (.844) and Federer is 40-8 (.833).
Nuts and bolts
Maybe even flashy statistics like wins and grand slams are results-oriented. ATP Tour compiles a lot of others to test players on a hyper-granular level.
But here too there is some clarity. Who has the best service? Federer won 77% of his first serve points, Djokovic 74% and Nadal 72%.
Best returner in clutch? They rank in reverse order. Nadal has 45% break points, Djokovic 44% and Federer 41% break points.
face to face
Maybe it’s time to call out all those matches against Tomas Berdych and Diego Schwartzman. How was the Big Three’s performance when they faced each other?
Here, Djokovic gets a bit of a chance. He holds a 30-29 lead over Nadal and 27-23 over Federer. Nadal leads Federer 24-16.
And in conclusion…
There are probably a million ways to understand this. And every time you figure it out, no one will like how you understood it.
In our little experiment, Nadal led in five categories, Djokovic in four and Federer in three. But most of the categories were extremely close. And if we had chosen something different, the result would have been different. Unless you stubbornly decide that only one statistic matters, there doesn’t seem to be a way to clearly separate the three.
Maybe you have a favorite. If so, we’ve got you some ammunition to make your argument while you wait for the next match at Rod Laver Arena or Arthur Ashe Stadium.
But no matter who you choose, it is clear that Federer’s retirement marks the beginning of the end of the golden era of men’s tennis. Maybe the young Carlos Alcaraz will scare some of these numbers off in 20 years or so. Or maybe we will never see the likes of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, at least at the same time again.