If you asked almost anyone familiar with tennis today, I believe their opinion or answer to the “greatest player ever” poll would be either Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, or possibly Bjorn Borg. Some Americans from older generations with an old-school approach may prefer Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe. Almost no one would chose Ivan Lendl, who went to more Grand Slam finals than Pete Sampras in an era of intense competition. Certainly very few would entertain the notion of declaring Novak Djokovic to be the greatest, given his #3 status behind Rafa and Roger in the hearts of modern tennis fans. So how could I dare suggest something against the prevailing sentiment? Herein lies the problem: our inherent bias or preference for players with a special place in popular culture prevents us from examining the merits of so-called “boring” players like Lendl and Djokovic.
Novak Djokovic is an incredible tennis player whose colorful impersonations of fellow colleagues contrast with his serious and no-nonsense style on the court. He does not have the flash of his biggest rivals, Federer and Nadal, and maybe that is why he likes to do impressions of them, among many others in his profession. Everyone realizes that Nole is great, but not everybody is willing to concede that he already deserves a place among the five or ten best of the Open Era. Newsday’s Jeff Williams does not even give him an honorable mention in his “10 best men's tennis players of all time”, even though Novak had just won his third Wimbledon title, tied for fourth in the Open Era with Boris Becker and John McEnroe, and ninth Grand Slam, more than the eight majors captured by Connors or Lendl, at the time of its publication in August of last year. Tennis Magazine, partly owned by Pete Sampras, published its 40 greatest players from 1965-2005, male and female. It listed Pete Sampras #1 (how surprising!) and Rod Laver #8, pushing him behind Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors in addition to Sampras. Would Australians agree with this assessment? My point is that subjectivity has no place in a serious discussion of the greatest tennis players of all time.
An objective person would recognize that Djokovic has matched the consensus choice, Roger Federer, in nearly every statistical category during their respective peaks at the same age. From 2005 to 2009, Federer went to seventeen Grand Slam finals, winning eleven and losing six while always reaching at least the semifinal stage at twenty majors. These five years are remarkably similar to Djokovic’s run from 2011 to 2015, because both stretches began in the year when each player turned 24 years old.
A short comparison chart of Federer and Djokovic from their age 24 to 28 seasons:
Certainly, Roger owns a slight edge here in terms of sheer brilliance at Grand Slams, but people should not forget that Djokovic has won 21 Masters Series 1000 titles along with four Year-End championships in addition to the nine Grand Slams above in the last five seasons. Federer never won more than 13 Master Series crowns in any five season stretch in his career.
When we examine their respective Grand Slam numbers over their whole careers or certain parts of their careers, the level of performance is practically equal. Federer went to 23 consecutive semifinals in majors from Wimbledon in 2004 through the Australian Open in 2010. Starting at Wimbledon in 2010, Novak has gotten to the semifinals in 21 of 22 Grand Slams. This includes a string of 14 straight semifinal appearances, finally broken by Stan Wawrinka in an extremely close Australian Open quarterfinal match in 2014 where Djokovic actually won more total points (161-153).1 If not for Stan’s heroics, Novak would be knocking on the door of Federer’s record of 23 semifinals in a row at this year’s Australian Open. Djokovic’s active streak of 26 straight major quarterfinals has him within reach of Federer’s impossible string of 36 over ten years from 2004 to 2013. To put this into perspective, Ivan Lendl is third with 14 consecutive appearances and Nadal is a distant fourth with 11.
Novak Djokovic has matched Roger Federer exactly when we check his major final percentage, or rate of success in reaching the finals of Grand Slam tournaments. Novak has succeeded in 18 out of 44 attempts, while Roger has succeeded in 27 out of 66, or 9 out of every 22 entries (41%) in the draw. Only Rafael Nadal (47%) and Bjorn Borg (59%) have better final percentages in major tournaments, greatly helped by their near invincibility at Roland Garros. If Djokovic can maintain or improve this pace in making finals, then he should come close to breaking Roger’s record of 17 major titles. In terms of winning percentage at Grand Slams, Djokovic (207-34) and Federer (297-49) are basically tied at 85.9% and 85.8%, respectively. Federer and Djokovic are fifth and sixth with major championship success rates of 25.8% (17 out of 66) and 22.7% (10 out of 44), behind only Borg, Laver, Nadal, and Sampras in the Open Era. Novak currently holds a better success rate in reaching at least the semifinal stage (63.6% vs. 57.6%) and quarterfinal stage (77.3% vs. 69.7%) of major tournaments than Federer, though this gap will probably decrease once Federer retires and Djokovic ages.
Best Winning Percentage in Grand Slams during Open Era, minimum: 140 wins
Add it all up and Federer and Djokovic are Top Six in all of these Grand Slam categories: Win Percentage (4th, 3rd); Championship Percentage (5th, 6th); Final Percentage (T-3rd); Semifinal Percentage (3rd, 1st); and Quarterfinal Percentage (4th, 2nd), respectively. Borg and Nadal are the two other tennis players who currently share this distinction since 1968. Thus, we have established that Novak Djokovic belongs with elite company. Now I will compare him individually with some top candidates, including Sampras, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi.
Novak Djokovic vs. Pete Sampras and Ivan Lendl:
Djokovic, Lendl, and Sampras were each victorious five times in the ATP World Tour Finals at the end of the season, with Novak being the only one among them who is undefeated in the championship round (5-0, including a walkover against Federer in 2014). In the Masters Series (formerly Grand Prix Super Series), or nine most important tourneys after the four majors and year-end championship, Novak has almost no equal with 26 triumphs in 85 entries but at least Lendl comes close with 22 titles in 71 attempts. Pete Sampras only won half that many, with 11 titles in 89 tries. The reason for Sampras lagging behind Lendl and Djokovic in this category is mainly his inability to capture many victories on clay, with a relatively modest 90-54 (.625) record for his entire career, including only one Masters Series 1000 title at Rome in 1994. Even on hard courts, Djokovic has a better winning percentage than Sampras with more wins and fewer losses (456-88 vs. 451-111) over their respective careers. In fact, Novak is arguably the most well-rounded player you will find in the history of the sport, similar to Jimmy Connors. Djokovic has basically won 80% or more of his matches on every surface - 79.6% on clay, 81.7% on grass, and 83.8% on hard. Heck, he’s even 8-2 on carpet, which is no longer used. Talk about consistency! The same can also be said about Lendl, who went a respectable 81-25 (76.4%) on grass, but never could string enough wins together to secure the Wimbledon trophy.
71% or Better Win% on Clay, Grass, and Hard Courts
In the chart above, courtesy of numerical data provided by atpworldtour.com, Pete Sampras is noticeably absent among the all-time greats. Stefan Edberg and Andy Murray at least came close to making this list with a clay-court winning rate of 68% and Boris Becker is also not too far off with a 120-61 record on clay (66%). Before Wimbledon 2013, a statistical model rating all the greats based on their performance in Grand Slam matches from the standpoint of quality of opponent and margin of victory (e.g. winning 6-2, 6-1 is better than winning 7-5, 7-6) churned out a list headed by Jimmy Connors as the best, followed by Bjorn Borg second, Roger Federer third, and Rafael Nadal fourth.2 Surprisingly, Sampras ranked 15th and Djokovic (more than two years ago) ranked 10th on that same list. If they were to run that formula or model again, I think Djokovic might be first, ahead of Connors, Borg, Federer, and Nadal. Given that Lendl had to deal with Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe, and even Borg at times, I would guess he was ranked close to Nadal even though the article does not mention his ranking.
Pete Sampras may seem to be slighted by this method of evaluation, but in its defense the implementer of it, Dr. Ian McHale, keenly observes, ‘Sampras is awkward because during his era he wasn't beating many other great players apart from Andre Agassi’.2 Tennis fans always cite the 14 Grand Slams in his trophy case, but they neglect to note some of the very good, but not legendary players Sampras had to defeat to achieve those major championships - Cedric Pioline (twice), Goran Ivanisevic (twice), Todd Martin (once), Michael Chang (once), and Carlos Moya (once). None of these five tennis players won more than one major title in their careers. If Sampras had to deal with the level that Djokovic has faced in Grand Slams, he would not have gone 14-4 in finals, or even gotten to that many finals. Remember Djokovic has already reached the same number of major finals (18) as Sampras, producing a solid 10-8 record given that he has faced the following opponents: Roger Federer (3-1), Rafael Nadal (3-4), Andy Murray (3-2), Stanislas Wawrinka (0-1), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (1-0). Wawrinka and Tsonga are comparable to the five players listed above that Sampras faced. Among all-time greats who are probably Top 10 or Top 15 in the Open Era, Pistol Pete only dealt with Edberg and Becker (each once), and the aforementioned Agassi five times. One could easily argue that Nadal and Federer are far better than anybody Sampras ever faced, and Andy Murray is not really as inferior to Agassi, Edberg, or Becker as his general stat line would suggest. His SF% (rate of success in reaching at least the semifinals of a Grand Slam) is superior to Agassi, Becker, and Edberg’s percentages (43.6%, 42.6%, 39.1%, and 35.2% in order of mention). He just hasn’t been able to defeat the three giants - Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - on a consistent basis. Who can devalue and blame Andy for not dethroning possibly the three best ever?
Perhaps the most telling statistic is Roger Federer’s win-loss in Grand Slam finals before and after he first met Rafael Nadal in the 2006 French Open championship. Up until then he had gone undefeated in seven straight major finals, including matchups against guys like Mark Philippoussis and Marcos Baghdatis. Since then, he has faced Nadal eight times, going only 2-6, and Djokovic four times, going just 1-3. Against everyone else, including Andy Murray, he has gone 7-1, losing only to Juan Martin del Potro. Cumulatively, Federer is 3-9 versus Nadal and Djokovic, and 14-1 versus the remaining competition. He was 7-0 before he ever had to beat Nadal or Djokovic, and an even 10-10 (.500) after they started battling him regularly for championships. His average opponent before facing Nadal won two major titles in his career, and since then his opponents in finals have won an average of eight majors in their careers.
Having a gauge of relative difficulty is essential in any statistical analysis or comparison in sports. Sampras played 12 different opponents for major titles, and these adversaries combined for 33 Grand Slam titles over their careers. His average opponent won less than four majors in a career (3.7 to be exact). Djokovic has played 5 different opponents who have combined for 35 majors in their careers. Novak’s average foe has won about 10 majors. Rafa and Novak are the only ones who have dealt with this premium competition level at the end of Grand Slams. Yet despite the intense opposition, Nadal has equaled Sampras already at 14 majors and Djokovic is trailing close behind in double digits with 10. Novak Djokovic may have a slightly lower championship percentage than Pete Sampras in Grand Slams (23% vs. 27%), but he is better in every other important category - Winning Percentage (86% vs. 84%), Final Rate (41% vs. 35%), Semifinal Rate (64% vs. 44%), and Quarterfinal Rate (77% vs. 56%). Taking into account Djokovic’s versatility on different surfaces in addition to his overall superiority in majors, my belief is that Sampras has been somewhat overrated above other great stars by virtue of his American birth and Western European roots. Sampras did not necessarily enjoy a better overall career than Lendl, what to speak of surpassing Djokovic.
Ivan Lendl played 9 different players for Grand Slam titles, who combined for 46 majors in their careers. Lendl’s rivals in these finals, including Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, John McEnroe, and Jimmy Connors, won an average of almost 6 Grand Slams (5.7) in their careers. If Lendl had to face the kind of players that Sampras faced more often, his 8-11 losing record would have probably improved significantly, leading to ten or more singles championships. Since Djokovic and Lendl both hail from former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, there appears to be a strange aversion towards placing them above players of Western European descent. Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg are the only four who have won a greater number of major championships in the last fifty years. Novak and Ivan should be considerations for the Top 5, and slam dunk no-brainers for the Top 10 singles players of all-time.
As for Pete Sampras, he is definitely one of the top five second-half players of all time, winning seven Wimbledon and five US Open crowns, but he is probably not deserving of a place among the top five full season players, because Borg, Laver, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic were all more complete players. I certainly would not place him as low as 15th (too harsh, in my opinion) because I think he clearly belongs in the Top 10. He did not lack the talent to thrive on clay, but seemed to lack the willingness to evolve and the focus or determination to win every tournament like Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have had in the modern era.
Novak Djokovic vs. Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe:
Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe never won the French Open, so there is no real advantage over Novak here. They rarely ever made the trip to Australia for the first major of the year, and so Novak certainly has a big edge in the first half of the season. Djokovic is tied with McEnroe with three Wimbledon titles. Connors and McEnroe both have more US Open championships, but Novak closes that gap on the same surface (hard courts) at Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne. Connors and McEnroe had great single seasons in 1974 and 1984, respectively, but neither had to match up against his biggest rival, Bjorn Borg in those years. In ’74 Borg was a teenager who won the French Open for the first time, but much like Nadal, was less adept on other surfaces and did not survive past the third round in the other three majors. Four of McEnroe’s best years (’82-’85) were enjoyed after Borg’s retirement.
What I really dislike about McEnroe and Connors is the fact that they skipped or avoided tournaments, which other greats from their era such as Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg did not do nearly as often. Connors inexplicably shunned the Masters Cup for three years (’74-’76) and missed the French Open five consecutive years (’74-’78). McEnroe was burned out after 1985 and missed two Wimbledons (’86-’87), while skipping six French Opens over the course of his career. But they never excused themselves from playing in New York at the US Open for two decades! Just because they are American, does not mean they should pick and choose their schedule arbitrarily. Competing in every important tournament is necessary when you want to establish yourself at the top and separate yourself from the rest of the field. No one except Roger Federer has done that with more dedication than Novak Djokovic.
Novak Djokovic vs. Andre Agassi and Boris Becker:
Andre Agassi has an Olympic Gold medal and French Open championship, both achievements missing from Djokovic’s portfolio, but both are attainable goals in 2016. Novak is equal or superior to Andre in every respect - serve (more career aces in fewer matches), return of serve, movement, two-handed backhand, forehand, and stamina. He does everything that Agassi did, but with more confidence and dependability. Djokovic has won more Australian Open (5 to 4) and Wimbledon (3 to 1) championships, and gone to the same number of finals at Roland Garros (3) and Flushing Meadows (6) as Agassi (both are 2-4 in US Open finals). If Novak finally wins the French Open and captures the gold medal at Rio de Janeiro, then no sane writer would be able to rate Andre higher than Novak in any category.
Boris Becker, Djokovic’s current head coach, was not terribly consistent but capable of beating anyone - essentially a poor man’s Pete Sampras. However, if Djokovic is better than Sampras, which I believe he is, then it follows that he was significantly better than Becker.
Novak Djokovic vs. Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver:
Borg and Laver are perhaps the two best candidates for recognition as the greatest to ever play, along with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Because they were old-timers, and because their career paths were interrupted in unexpected ways - one by professional ban and the other by abrupt retirement - it is very difficult to compare either one of them to Novak, especially Rod. I will say this much: Borg has the highest winning percentage (90%), championship percentage (41%), and final rate (59%) in majors by a clear margin over others in the Open Era. Djokovic is the only who really matches him in semifinal and quarterfinal rates (63% vs. 64% SF rate, 78% vs. 77% QF rate). Unfortunately, Bjorn Borg quit playing as soon as he met someone who could humble him in successive crushing defeats at Wimbledon and the US Open. Roger Federer never considered retirement after losing to Nadal so many times, and I believe Novak Djokovic has a very resilient personality. No one thought he would ever approach Federer and Nadal’s Grand Slam numbers, but they are now within sight. A good example of Novak’s hunger to overcome his fellow champions is his bold declaration that Rafa was “not unbeatable” on clay after their very first match against each other on the ATP tour, which just happened to be at Roland Garros in 2006 when Nadal was about to win his second consecutive French Open.3 Has Murray or Federer ever had the guts to make such a statement without hesitation? This self-belief is what has propelled Djokovic to the nearly unbeatable level of the present.
Why I think Djokovic is the greatest of all time:
He has all the strengths of Federer and Nadal, while eschewing all of their weaknesses.
Federer’s consistency, durability, and dominance at his peak are matched by Djokovic as one can observe from their remarkably similar career progressions, especially from the ages of 24-28. These last five consecutive seasons by Djokovic (2011-2015) are unparalleled, except by Federer (2004-2008 or 2005-2009). Nobody has thoroughly crushed the rest of the competition the way Djokovic and Federer have done for such an extended period. Only Nadal comes close to Djokovic in Master Series 1000 brilliance, but he has never won a Year-End title. Rafa’s lack of durability is highlighted by his absence at 4 ATP World Tour Finals events (’05, ’08, ’12, ’14) and 5 Grand Slams (’06 & ’13 Australian, ’09 Wimbledon, ’12 & ‘14 US). The tournaments missed from 2012 to 2014 were especially damaging because he was at the top of his game and could have surpassed Djokovic as the world #1 for all of those seasons. Novak Djokovic has not skipped a major for the last eleven years (44 grand slams) and has qualified and played in every Year-End Championship for the last eight years, making him a factor in 52 straight combined! None of the other modern greats - Sampras, Agassi, Borg, McEnroe, Nadal, Lendl, or Connors - has demonstated this Federer-esque dedication to the sport of tennis. Federer, of course, is still going strong, having entered the draw of all four slams for 16th consecutive seasons, not to mention his 14th straight appearance at the World Tour Finals last November.
Federer’s weakness has been head to head against certain top players, a soft spot where Djokovic and Nadal are more powerful. Other than Roddick and Nadal, who have practically even records against Djokovic (5-4 and 23-24), no player has really outplayed Novak in a large enough sample to have any meaningful value. Similarly, Nadal has a winning record against almost everyone except Nikolay Davydenko, who owns a thin 6-5 edge head to head over Rafa. Federer has a glaring 11-23 win-loss against Nadal, and we can make excuses such as the clay surface advantage (Federer has a more even 9-10 record on all other surfaces) or the age difference in prime years to explain it away, but ultimately the fact of the matter is that Rafa has gotten the better of Roger two out of every three matches between them.
Part of the reason for this is break point conversion rates and not just the 13-2 margin on clay. Nadal has won the same number of matches against Djokovic and Federer (23 each). In those 23 losses, Federer broke Nadal 55 times in 182 break point chances (30%) while in 22 losses (excluding a Davis Cup loss where I cannot find the match data) Djokovic broke Nadal 54 times in 144 break point chances (38%). Roger’s break point conversion rate was unusually low, and this is a big reason for his failures against Rafa in otherwise extremely close matches. In 17 of their 34 meetings, Nadal has faced the same number of break points (4 times) or more (13 times) on his serve than Roger. Miraculously, Rafael Nadal has managed to go a decent 8–9 in those 17 matches where he was usually at a disadvantage in terms of break point opportunities, including 5-1 on clay. Conversely, Federer is a predictable 2-15 in the other 17 matches where he faced more break points than Nadal. To summarize, Nadal was 4-9 when Federer had more break chances than him; Nadal was a perfect 4-0 when they each had the same number of break points; and Nadal was 15-2 when he had more break chances than Federer. Nadal’s head-to-head splits against Djokovic (excluding one Davis Cup victory) are more in line with expectation: Nadal was 3-20 when Djokovic had more break chances than him; Nadal was 2-1 when they each had the same number of break chances; and Nadal was 17-3 when he had more break chances than Djokovic.
The bottom line is Federer should have won at least 3 or 4 of the matches that he lost to Nadal, but frankly he seemed to choke under pressure. As early as 2006, Mats Wilander used rather abusive words to describe Federer’s apparent lack of courage against Nadal4, and to some degree his criticism is justifiable. Roger had just lost three straight matches on clay to Nadal at Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros during what would turn out to be his finest season on the tour. He only converted 11 of 38 break points (29%) while Nadal converted 14 of 35 break points (40%) in those contests. This disturbing trend has continued to plague Roger in key matchups with Rafa, such as the 2007 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 Australian Open, and 2011 French Open finals (13/64, or a measly 20% for Federer compared to 22/54, or 41% for Nadal in those four huge matches). Think about it: Roger had ten more break points and still converted nine fewer than his intimidating opponent. Finally, Novak is 6-14 against Rafa on clay compared to 2-13 for Roger, and so if Djokovic could find a way to win about 1 out of every 3 matches against Nadal on his favorite surface, then why hasn’t Federer been able to at least do the same? Mental toughness is a trait where Novak and Rafa have an edge over Roger.
Here is a list of the eight painful losses where Roger Federer had as many or more break points than Rafael Nadal during the whole match (Data Reference at https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_atp or http://www.tennisabstract.com/):
Federer also has struggled to beat certain foes like Andy Murray (14-11 record) and David Nalbandian (11-8 record), who are close to even with him in their matchups. Both Novak (21-9) and Rafa (16-6) have dominated Murray for the most part. Since Djokovic is virtually even with both Federer (22-22) and Nadal (24-23) head to head, I would choose Djokovic over Federer if I needed to win one match against any random opponent. But assuming everyone is in top form, Nadal might be my first choice in any head-to-head matchup, albeit only by a hair over Djokovic. Rafa gets the edge here because we also have to account for his sterling 22-1 win-loss in Davis Cup singles play and his Olympic Gold medal (undefeated 6-0 at Beijing in 2008). When we look at winning percentage across Grand Slams, Masters Series 1000, and World Tour Finals, Djokovic (267-58) and Nadal (302-64) are virtually tied with an 83.1% winning percentage, while Federer trails them by a small margin at 81.2%.
Nadal has moderate trouble on certain surfaces like indoor hard courts and outdoor grass, while Djokovic and Federer have both demonstrated the ability to adapt well to any surface. That is why Nadal never won the Masters Cup or World Tour Finals in seven attempts. He has not survived past the second round in three of the last four Wimbledons. So even though Nadal and Federer both have some shaky weapons at times, such as Rafa’s serve or Roger’s backhand, Djokovic simply does not have any discernible weakness after he improved his fitness regimen and stopped retiring prematurely from matches in his first few years on the tour.
American tennis coach Nick Bollettieri recently wrote before the 2015 Wimbledon final: “As I go back in time (60 years) and think about all of the players I’ve had the privilege of watching, I believe Novak Djokovic’s overall game, including the mental and physical parts, may be as perfect as I’ve seen.”(5) John McEnroe, always vocal about his own opinions, placed Djokovic in his all-time top five: ‘My top four are Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger and Rafael Nadal but Novak is at number five and rising.’(6) John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, and Patrick McEnroe all raved about Djokovic’s incredible 2011 season. John called it the greatest season in tennis history; Pete said it was the best he had seen in his lifetime; Patrick praised it as the finest year since Rod Laver’s 1969 calendar slam.7 Indeed, Novak’s 2011 and 2015 seasons taken together are probably the best pair of seasons produced in the Open Era, just ahead of Roger Federer’s 2006 and 2007 seasons, in my eyes.
Even his contemporaries and biggest rivals are not shying away from lauding his efforts. After badly losing in the Doha final to Djokovic at the beginning of the 2016 season (6-1, 6-2), Nadal bluntly admitted: ‘I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level.’(8) In the last four sets played between the two great champions, Novak has taken 24 games and Nadal has taken 9 games. Djokovic has faced one break point over the course of those four sets, while Nadal has faced twelve break points in the same span.9 Including Doha, Novak Djokovic has now gone to 16 consecutive tournament finals, third behind Roger Federer’s streak of 17 finals from 2005-’06 and Ivan Lendl’s string of 18 finals from 1981-’82.10
Federer himself conceded Novak’s consistent greatness in an amusing but serious way after finishing runner-up a second straight year to him on grass at Wimbledon. This was the first question he answered at Centre Court right after his defeat to Djokovic, which is referenced by the New York Times11 in an abridged quotation:
Reporter: Roger, it was a tough day today, you threw everything at him, but some days you just have to say too good?
Roger: Yeah, absolutely, I think Novak played not only great today but the whole two weeks plus the whole year, plus last year, plus the year before that so… you deserve it, well done Novak!
If I had to provide my list to a panel of experts of the Top 10 tennis players, I would have Novak and Roger in the first two spots, followed by Nadal and Borg, the two most dominant on clay, with Laver rounding out the top five. Next, I would select Connors sixth, Lendl seventh, Sampras eighth, McEnroe ninth, and Agassi tenth. Becker, Edberg, and Wilander would be close behind Agassi, and Andy Murray should be in the Top 20, and probably the Top 15. Connors has the most match wins (1254) and second most major victories (233) in history. He has a winning percentage of 78% or better on every surface, which is unbelievable given the length of his career. His .500 or better record in Slam finals against Borg (2-2), McEnroe (1-1), and Lendl (2-0), convinces me to put him higher than anybody outside the Top 5. Sampras may have had greater talent, but in terms of performance it is hard to place any American ahead of Jimmy Connors, including John McEnroe, who at his peak (1984) was at least as good as Sampras was during his best year (1994). Also, I am not the only one suggesting that Djokovic and Federer may be the two best ever - Carl Bialik and Benjamin Morris proposed the same viewpoint on the eve of last season’s US Open final between the two titans.12
My opinion is that Roger and Novak are neck-and-neck as the two finest and most consistent tennis racquet wielders of the Open Era. Federer had the advantage of lesser competition in his earlier years, but also has accomplished more than Djokovic due to his seniority and ageless longevity. Whether Novak can match Roger’s ability to adapt his game and continue playing well after the age of 30, it remains to be seen. Given Djokovic’s fitness level, it is hard to bet against him. Nonetheless, right here and right now, Roger Federer deserves to be called the greatest player in the history of men’s tennis. However, five years from now, say in 2020, I think Novak Djokovic will be regarded as the the best to ever play this game, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/01/21/wawrinka-ousts-djokovic-in-aussie-quarters.html
2. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/jun/23/jimmy-connors-pete-sampras-wimbledon
3. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/French-Open-Djokovic-Nadal-Renew-Rivalry-in-Quarterfinals--305885551.html
4. http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/federer-not-greatest-yet-wilander/2006/06/15/1149964673956.html
5. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/wimbledon-2015-nick-bollettieri-why-novak-djokovic-is-the-perfect-tennis-machine-10381894.html
6. http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/33502214
7. http://novakdjokovic.com/en/news/media/pete-sampras-novaks-season-best-ive-seen-in-my-lifetime/
8. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/nadal-lauds-djokovic-performance-in-doha-2016-final
9. http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RafaelNadal
10. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/london-2015-saturday-preview-federer-faces-djokovic-for-title
11. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/sports/tennis/wimbledon-2015-novak-djokovic-wins-wimbledon-title-beating-roger-federer.html
12. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/
Novak Djokovic is an incredible tennis player whose colorful impersonations of fellow colleagues contrast with his serious and no-nonsense style on the court. He does not have the flash of his biggest rivals, Federer and Nadal, and maybe that is why he likes to do impressions of them, among many others in his profession. Everyone realizes that Nole is great, but not everybody is willing to concede that he already deserves a place among the five or ten best of the Open Era. Newsday’s Jeff Williams does not even give him an honorable mention in his “10 best men's tennis players of all time”, even though Novak had just won his third Wimbledon title, tied for fourth in the Open Era with Boris Becker and John McEnroe, and ninth Grand Slam, more than the eight majors captured by Connors or Lendl, at the time of its publication in August of last year. Tennis Magazine, partly owned by Pete Sampras, published its 40 greatest players from 1965-2005, male and female. It listed Pete Sampras #1 (how surprising!) and Rod Laver #8, pushing him behind Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors in addition to Sampras. Would Australians agree with this assessment? My point is that subjectivity has no place in a serious discussion of the greatest tennis players of all time.
An objective person would recognize that Djokovic has matched the consensus choice, Roger Federer, in nearly every statistical category during their respective peaks at the same age. From 2005 to 2009, Federer went to seventeen Grand Slam finals, winning eleven and losing six while always reaching at least the semifinal stage at twenty majors. These five years are remarkably similar to Djokovic’s run from 2011 to 2015, because both stretches began in the year when each player turned 24 years old.
A short comparison chart of Federer and Djokovic from their age 24 to 28 seasons:
GS Titles
|
Runner Up
|
Semifinal
|
Wins
|
Losses
|
Win%
|
|
Roger Federer
|
11
|
6
|
3
|
127
|
9
|
0.934
|
Novak Djokovic
|
9
|
6
|
4
|
122
|
11
|
0.917
|
Certainly, Roger owns a slight edge here in terms of sheer brilliance at Grand Slams, but people should not forget that Djokovic has won 21 Masters Series 1000 titles along with four Year-End championships in addition to the nine Grand Slams above in the last five seasons. Federer never won more than 13 Master Series crowns in any five season stretch in his career.
When we examine their respective Grand Slam numbers over their whole careers or certain parts of their careers, the level of performance is practically equal. Federer went to 23 consecutive semifinals in majors from Wimbledon in 2004 through the Australian Open in 2010. Starting at Wimbledon in 2010, Novak has gotten to the semifinals in 21 of 22 Grand Slams. This includes a string of 14 straight semifinal appearances, finally broken by Stan Wawrinka in an extremely close Australian Open quarterfinal match in 2014 where Djokovic actually won more total points (161-153).1 If not for Stan’s heroics, Novak would be knocking on the door of Federer’s record of 23 semifinals in a row at this year’s Australian Open. Djokovic’s active streak of 26 straight major quarterfinals has him within reach of Federer’s impossible string of 36 over ten years from 2004 to 2013. To put this into perspective, Ivan Lendl is third with 14 consecutive appearances and Nadal is a distant fourth with 11.
Novak Djokovic has matched Roger Federer exactly when we check his major final percentage, or rate of success in reaching the finals of Grand Slam tournaments. Novak has succeeded in 18 out of 44 attempts, while Roger has succeeded in 27 out of 66, or 9 out of every 22 entries (41%) in the draw. Only Rafael Nadal (47%) and Bjorn Borg (59%) have better final percentages in major tournaments, greatly helped by their near invincibility at Roland Garros. If Djokovic can maintain or improve this pace in making finals, then he should come close to breaking Roger’s record of 17 major titles. In terms of winning percentage at Grand Slams, Djokovic (207-34) and Federer (297-49) are basically tied at 85.9% and 85.8%, respectively. Federer and Djokovic are fifth and sixth with major championship success rates of 25.8% (17 out of 66) and 22.7% (10 out of 44), behind only Borg, Laver, Nadal, and Sampras in the Open Era. Novak currently holds a better success rate in reaching at least the semifinal stage (63.6% vs. 57.6%) and quarterfinal stage (77.3% vs. 69.7%) of major tournaments than Federer, though this gap will probably decrease once Federer retires and Djokovic ages.
Best Winning Percentage in Grand Slams during Open Era, minimum: 140 wins
Titles
|
Finalist
|
SF
|
QF
|
Entries
|
Wins
|
Losses
|
Win %
|
Champ %
|
Final %
|
SF%
|
QF%
|
|
Bjorn Borg
|
11
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
27
|
141
|
16
|
90%
|
41%
|
59%
|
63%
|
78%
|
Rafael Nadal
|
14
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
43
|
198
|
29
|
87%
|
33%
|
47%
|
54%
|
67%
|
Novak Djokovic
|
10
|
8
|
10
|
6
|
44
|
207
|
34
|
86%
|
23%
|
41%
|
64%
|
77%
|
Roger Federer
|
17
|
10
|
11
|
8
|
66
|
297
|
49
|
86%
|
26%
|
41%
|
58%
|
70%
|
Pete Sampras
|
14
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
52
|
203
|
38
|
84%
|
27%
|
35%
|
44%
|
56%
|
Jimmy Connors
|
8
|
7
|
16
|
10
|
58
|
232
|
50
|
82%
|
14%
|
26%
|
53%
|
71%
|
Ivan Lendl
|
8
|
11
|
9
|
6
|
57
|
222
|
49
|
82%
|
14%
|
33%
|
49%
|
60%
|
Andre Agassi
|
8
|
7
|
11
|
10
|
61
|
224
|
53
|
81%
|
13%
|
25%
|
43%
|
59%
|
John McEnroe
|
7
|
4
|
8
|
7
|
47
|
167
|
40
|
81%
|
15%
|
23%
|
40%
|
55%
|
Andy Murray
|
2
|
6
|
9
|
7
|
39
|
153
|
37
|
81%
|
5%
|
21%
|
44%
|
62%
|
Boris Becker
|
6
|
4
|
8
|
5
|
46
|
163
|
40
|
80%
|
13%
|
22%
|
39%
|
50%
|
Mats Wilander
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
44
|
144
|
37
|
80%
|
16%
|
25%
|
32%
|
46%
|
Stefan Edberg
|
6
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
54
|
178
|
48
|
79%
|
11%
|
20%
|
35%
|
48%
|
Add it all up and Federer and Djokovic are Top Six in all of these Grand Slam categories: Win Percentage (4th, 3rd); Championship Percentage (5th, 6th); Final Percentage (T-3rd); Semifinal Percentage (3rd, 1st); and Quarterfinal Percentage (4th, 2nd), respectively. Borg and Nadal are the two other tennis players who currently share this distinction since 1968. Thus, we have established that Novak Djokovic belongs with elite company. Now I will compare him individually with some top candidates, including Sampras, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, and Agassi.
Novak Djokovic vs. Pete Sampras and Ivan Lendl:
Djokovic, Lendl, and Sampras were each victorious five times in the ATP World Tour Finals at the end of the season, with Novak being the only one among them who is undefeated in the championship round (5-0, including a walkover against Federer in 2014). In the Masters Series (formerly Grand Prix Super Series), or nine most important tourneys after the four majors and year-end championship, Novak has almost no equal with 26 triumphs in 85 entries but at least Lendl comes close with 22 titles in 71 attempts. Pete Sampras only won half that many, with 11 titles in 89 tries. The reason for Sampras lagging behind Lendl and Djokovic in this category is mainly his inability to capture many victories on clay, with a relatively modest 90-54 (.625) record for his entire career, including only one Masters Series 1000 title at Rome in 1994. Even on hard courts, Djokovic has a better winning percentage than Sampras with more wins and fewer losses (456-88 vs. 451-111) over their respective careers. In fact, Novak is arguably the most well-rounded player you will find in the history of the sport, similar to Jimmy Connors. Djokovic has basically won 80% or more of his matches on every surface - 79.6% on clay, 81.7% on grass, and 83.8% on hard. Heck, he’s even 8-2 on carpet, which is no longer used. Talk about consistency! The same can also be said about Lendl, who went a respectable 81-25 (76.4%) on grass, but never could string enough wins together to secure the Wimbledon trophy.
71% or Better Win% on Clay, Grass, and Hard Courts
Clay
|
Grass
|
Hard
|
|
Roger Federer
|
211-66 (.762)
|
142-20 (.877)
|
663-138 (.828)
|
Andre Agassi
|
152-57 (.727)
|
50-18 (.735)
|
612-163 (.790)
|
Jimmy Connors
|
200-57 (.778)
|
170-34 (.833)
|
546-114 (.827)
|
Novak Djokovic
|
160-41 (.796)
|
67-15 (.817)
|
456-88 (.838)
|
Ivan Lendl
|
327-74 (.815)
|
81-25 (.764)
|
397-86 (.822)
|
Rafael Nadal
|
344-30 (.920)
|
58-17 (.773)
|
367-108 (.773)
|
Bjorn Borg
|
251-41 (.860)
|
61-11 (.847)
|
121-38 (.761)
|
John McEnroe
|
120-47 (.719)
|
119-20 (.856)
|
299-73 (.804)
|
Ilie Nastase
|
333-97 (.774)
|
76-31 (.710)
|
206-84 (.710)
|
Mats Wilander
|
263-78 (.771)
|
50-17 (.746)
|
193-77 (.715)
|
John Newcombe
|
89-36 (.712)
|
128-35 (.785)
|
162-53 (.753)
|
Rod Laver
|
72-22 (.766)
|
67-14 (.827)
|
156-36 (.813)
|
Ken Rosewall
|
82-24 (.774)
|
118-32 (.787)
|
154-59 (.723)
|
In the chart above, courtesy of numerical data provided by atpworldtour.com, Pete Sampras is noticeably absent among the all-time greats. Stefan Edberg and Andy Murray at least came close to making this list with a clay-court winning rate of 68% and Boris Becker is also not too far off with a 120-61 record on clay (66%). Before Wimbledon 2013, a statistical model rating all the greats based on their performance in Grand Slam matches from the standpoint of quality of opponent and margin of victory (e.g. winning 6-2, 6-1 is better than winning 7-5, 7-6) churned out a list headed by Jimmy Connors as the best, followed by Bjorn Borg second, Roger Federer third, and Rafael Nadal fourth.2 Surprisingly, Sampras ranked 15th and Djokovic (more than two years ago) ranked 10th on that same list. If they were to run that formula or model again, I think Djokovic might be first, ahead of Connors, Borg, Federer, and Nadal. Given that Lendl had to deal with Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe, and even Borg at times, I would guess he was ranked close to Nadal even though the article does not mention his ranking.
Pete Sampras may seem to be slighted by this method of evaluation, but in its defense the implementer of it, Dr. Ian McHale, keenly observes, ‘Sampras is awkward because during his era he wasn't beating many other great players apart from Andre Agassi’.2 Tennis fans always cite the 14 Grand Slams in his trophy case, but they neglect to note some of the very good, but not legendary players Sampras had to defeat to achieve those major championships - Cedric Pioline (twice), Goran Ivanisevic (twice), Todd Martin (once), Michael Chang (once), and Carlos Moya (once). None of these five tennis players won more than one major title in their careers. If Sampras had to deal with the level that Djokovic has faced in Grand Slams, he would not have gone 14-4 in finals, or even gotten to that many finals. Remember Djokovic has already reached the same number of major finals (18) as Sampras, producing a solid 10-8 record given that he has faced the following opponents: Roger Federer (3-1), Rafael Nadal (3-4), Andy Murray (3-2), Stanislas Wawrinka (0-1), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (1-0). Wawrinka and Tsonga are comparable to the five players listed above that Sampras faced. Among all-time greats who are probably Top 10 or Top 15 in the Open Era, Pistol Pete only dealt with Edberg and Becker (each once), and the aforementioned Agassi five times. One could easily argue that Nadal and Federer are far better than anybody Sampras ever faced, and Andy Murray is not really as inferior to Agassi, Edberg, or Becker as his general stat line would suggest. His SF% (rate of success in reaching at least the semifinals of a Grand Slam) is superior to Agassi, Becker, and Edberg’s percentages (43.6%, 42.6%, 39.1%, and 35.2% in order of mention). He just hasn’t been able to defeat the three giants - Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - on a consistent basis. Who can devalue and blame Andy for not dethroning possibly the three best ever?
Perhaps the most telling statistic is Roger Federer’s win-loss in Grand Slam finals before and after he first met Rafael Nadal in the 2006 French Open championship. Up until then he had gone undefeated in seven straight major finals, including matchups against guys like Mark Philippoussis and Marcos Baghdatis. Since then, he has faced Nadal eight times, going only 2-6, and Djokovic four times, going just 1-3. Against everyone else, including Andy Murray, he has gone 7-1, losing only to Juan Martin del Potro. Cumulatively, Federer is 3-9 versus Nadal and Djokovic, and 14-1 versus the remaining competition. He was 7-0 before he ever had to beat Nadal or Djokovic, and an even 10-10 (.500) after they started battling him regularly for championships. His average opponent before facing Nadal won two major titles in his career, and since then his opponents in finals have won an average of eight majors in their careers.
Having a gauge of relative difficulty is essential in any statistical analysis or comparison in sports. Sampras played 12 different opponents for major titles, and these adversaries combined for 33 Grand Slam titles over their careers. His average opponent won less than four majors in a career (3.7 to be exact). Djokovic has played 5 different opponents who have combined for 35 majors in their careers. Novak’s average foe has won about 10 majors. Rafa and Novak are the only ones who have dealt with this premium competition level at the end of Grand Slams. Yet despite the intense opposition, Nadal has equaled Sampras already at 14 majors and Djokovic is trailing close behind in double digits with 10. Novak Djokovic may have a slightly lower championship percentage than Pete Sampras in Grand Slams (23% vs. 27%), but he is better in every other important category - Winning Percentage (86% vs. 84%), Final Rate (41% vs. 35%), Semifinal Rate (64% vs. 44%), and Quarterfinal Rate (77% vs. 56%). Taking into account Djokovic’s versatility on different surfaces in addition to his overall superiority in majors, my belief is that Sampras has been somewhat overrated above other great stars by virtue of his American birth and Western European roots. Sampras did not necessarily enjoy a better overall career than Lendl, what to speak of surpassing Djokovic.
Ivan Lendl played 9 different players for Grand Slam titles, who combined for 46 majors in their careers. Lendl’s rivals in these finals, including Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, John McEnroe, and Jimmy Connors, won an average of almost 6 Grand Slams (5.7) in their careers. If Lendl had to face the kind of players that Sampras faced more often, his 8-11 losing record would have probably improved significantly, leading to ten or more singles championships. Since Djokovic and Lendl both hail from former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, there appears to be a strange aversion towards placing them above players of Western European descent. Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg are the only four who have won a greater number of major championships in the last fifty years. Novak and Ivan should be considerations for the Top 5, and slam dunk no-brainers for the Top 10 singles players of all-time.
As for Pete Sampras, he is definitely one of the top five second-half players of all time, winning seven Wimbledon and five US Open crowns, but he is probably not deserving of a place among the top five full season players, because Borg, Laver, Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic were all more complete players. I certainly would not place him as low as 15th (too harsh, in my opinion) because I think he clearly belongs in the Top 10. He did not lack the talent to thrive on clay, but seemed to lack the willingness to evolve and the focus or determination to win every tournament like Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have had in the modern era.
Novak Djokovic vs. Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe:
Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe never won the French Open, so there is no real advantage over Novak here. They rarely ever made the trip to Australia for the first major of the year, and so Novak certainly has a big edge in the first half of the season. Djokovic is tied with McEnroe with three Wimbledon titles. Connors and McEnroe both have more US Open championships, but Novak closes that gap on the same surface (hard courts) at Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne. Connors and McEnroe had great single seasons in 1974 and 1984, respectively, but neither had to match up against his biggest rival, Bjorn Borg in those years. In ’74 Borg was a teenager who won the French Open for the first time, but much like Nadal, was less adept on other surfaces and did not survive past the third round in the other three majors. Four of McEnroe’s best years (’82-’85) were enjoyed after Borg’s retirement.
What I really dislike about McEnroe and Connors is the fact that they skipped or avoided tournaments, which other greats from their era such as Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg did not do nearly as often. Connors inexplicably shunned the Masters Cup for three years (’74-’76) and missed the French Open five consecutive years (’74-’78). McEnroe was burned out after 1985 and missed two Wimbledons (’86-’87), while skipping six French Opens over the course of his career. But they never excused themselves from playing in New York at the US Open for two decades! Just because they are American, does not mean they should pick and choose their schedule arbitrarily. Competing in every important tournament is necessary when you want to establish yourself at the top and separate yourself from the rest of the field. No one except Roger Federer has done that with more dedication than Novak Djokovic.
Novak Djokovic vs. Andre Agassi and Boris Becker:
Andre Agassi has an Olympic Gold medal and French Open championship, both achievements missing from Djokovic’s portfolio, but both are attainable goals in 2016. Novak is equal or superior to Andre in every respect - serve (more career aces in fewer matches), return of serve, movement, two-handed backhand, forehand, and stamina. He does everything that Agassi did, but with more confidence and dependability. Djokovic has won more Australian Open (5 to 4) and Wimbledon (3 to 1) championships, and gone to the same number of finals at Roland Garros (3) and Flushing Meadows (6) as Agassi (both are 2-4 in US Open finals). If Novak finally wins the French Open and captures the gold medal at Rio de Janeiro, then no sane writer would be able to rate Andre higher than Novak in any category.
Boris Becker, Djokovic’s current head coach, was not terribly consistent but capable of beating anyone - essentially a poor man’s Pete Sampras. However, if Djokovic is better than Sampras, which I believe he is, then it follows that he was significantly better than Becker.
Novak Djokovic vs. Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver:
Borg and Laver are perhaps the two best candidates for recognition as the greatest to ever play, along with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Because they were old-timers, and because their career paths were interrupted in unexpected ways - one by professional ban and the other by abrupt retirement - it is very difficult to compare either one of them to Novak, especially Rod. I will say this much: Borg has the highest winning percentage (90%), championship percentage (41%), and final rate (59%) in majors by a clear margin over others in the Open Era. Djokovic is the only who really matches him in semifinal and quarterfinal rates (63% vs. 64% SF rate, 78% vs. 77% QF rate). Unfortunately, Bjorn Borg quit playing as soon as he met someone who could humble him in successive crushing defeats at Wimbledon and the US Open. Roger Federer never considered retirement after losing to Nadal so many times, and I believe Novak Djokovic has a very resilient personality. No one thought he would ever approach Federer and Nadal’s Grand Slam numbers, but they are now within sight. A good example of Novak’s hunger to overcome his fellow champions is his bold declaration that Rafa was “not unbeatable” on clay after their very first match against each other on the ATP tour, which just happened to be at Roland Garros in 2006 when Nadal was about to win his second consecutive French Open.3 Has Murray or Federer ever had the guts to make such a statement without hesitation? This self-belief is what has propelled Djokovic to the nearly unbeatable level of the present.
Why I think Djokovic is the greatest of all time:
He has all the strengths of Federer and Nadal, while eschewing all of their weaknesses.
Federer’s consistency, durability, and dominance at his peak are matched by Djokovic as one can observe from their remarkably similar career progressions, especially from the ages of 24-28. These last five consecutive seasons by Djokovic (2011-2015) are unparalleled, except by Federer (2004-2008 or 2005-2009). Nobody has thoroughly crushed the rest of the competition the way Djokovic and Federer have done for such an extended period. Only Nadal comes close to Djokovic in Master Series 1000 brilliance, but he has never won a Year-End title. Rafa’s lack of durability is highlighted by his absence at 4 ATP World Tour Finals events (’05, ’08, ’12, ’14) and 5 Grand Slams (’06 & ’13 Australian, ’09 Wimbledon, ’12 & ‘14 US). The tournaments missed from 2012 to 2014 were especially damaging because he was at the top of his game and could have surpassed Djokovic as the world #1 for all of those seasons. Novak Djokovic has not skipped a major for the last eleven years (44 grand slams) and has qualified and played in every Year-End Championship for the last eight years, making him a factor in 52 straight combined! None of the other modern greats - Sampras, Agassi, Borg, McEnroe, Nadal, Lendl, or Connors - has demonstated this Federer-esque dedication to the sport of tennis. Federer, of course, is still going strong, having entered the draw of all four slams for 16th consecutive seasons, not to mention his 14th straight appearance at the World Tour Finals last November.
Federer’s weakness has been head to head against certain top players, a soft spot where Djokovic and Nadal are more powerful. Other than Roddick and Nadal, who have practically even records against Djokovic (5-4 and 23-24), no player has really outplayed Novak in a large enough sample to have any meaningful value. Similarly, Nadal has a winning record against almost everyone except Nikolay Davydenko, who owns a thin 6-5 edge head to head over Rafa. Federer has a glaring 11-23 win-loss against Nadal, and we can make excuses such as the clay surface advantage (Federer has a more even 9-10 record on all other surfaces) or the age difference in prime years to explain it away, but ultimately the fact of the matter is that Rafa has gotten the better of Roger two out of every three matches between them.
Part of the reason for this is break point conversion rates and not just the 13-2 margin on clay. Nadal has won the same number of matches against Djokovic and Federer (23 each). In those 23 losses, Federer broke Nadal 55 times in 182 break point chances (30%) while in 22 losses (excluding a Davis Cup loss where I cannot find the match data) Djokovic broke Nadal 54 times in 144 break point chances (38%). Roger’s break point conversion rate was unusually low, and this is a big reason for his failures against Rafa in otherwise extremely close matches. In 17 of their 34 meetings, Nadal has faced the same number of break points (4 times) or more (13 times) on his serve than Roger. Miraculously, Rafael Nadal has managed to go a decent 8–9 in those 17 matches where he was usually at a disadvantage in terms of break point opportunities, including 5-1 on clay. Conversely, Federer is a predictable 2-15 in the other 17 matches where he faced more break points than Nadal. To summarize, Nadal was 4-9 when Federer had more break chances than him; Nadal was a perfect 4-0 when they each had the same number of break points; and Nadal was 15-2 when he had more break chances than Federer. Nadal’s head-to-head splits against Djokovic (excluding one Davis Cup victory) are more in line with expectation: Nadal was 3-20 when Djokovic had more break chances than him; Nadal was 2-1 when they each had the same number of break chances; and Nadal was 17-3 when he had more break chances than Djokovic.
The bottom line is Federer should have won at least 3 or 4 of the matches that he lost to Nadal, but frankly he seemed to choke under pressure. As early as 2006, Mats Wilander used rather abusive words to describe Federer’s apparent lack of courage against Nadal4, and to some degree his criticism is justifiable. Roger had just lost three straight matches on clay to Nadal at Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros during what would turn out to be his finest season on the tour. He only converted 11 of 38 break points (29%) while Nadal converted 14 of 35 break points (40%) in those contests. This disturbing trend has continued to plague Roger in key matchups with Rafa, such as the 2007 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 Australian Open, and 2011 French Open finals (13/64, or a measly 20% for Federer compared to 22/54, or 41% for Nadal in those four huge matches). Think about it: Roger had ten more break points and still converted nine fewer than his intimidating opponent. Finally, Novak is 6-14 against Rafa on clay compared to 2-13 for Roger, and so if Djokovic could find a way to win about 1 out of every 3 matches against Nadal on his favorite surface, then why hasn’t Federer been able to at least do the same? Mental toughness is a trait where Novak and Rafa have an edge over Roger.
Here is a list of the eight painful losses where Roger Federer had as many or more break points than Rafael Nadal during the whole match (Data Reference at https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_atp or http://www.tennisabstract.com/):
Tourney
|
Date
|
Score
|
Total Pts Won by Nadal
|
Total Pts Won by Federer
|
Break Points for Nadal
|
Break Points for Federer
|
Nadal’s Break Pct
|
Federer’s Break Pct
|
Monte Carlo
|
04/2006
|
6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5)
|
155
|
140
|
14
|
18
|
50%
|
22.2%
|
Rome
|
05/2006
|
6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
|
174
|
179
|
9
|
10
|
33.3%
|
40%
|
Roland Garros
|
05/2007
|
6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
|
136
|
119
|
10
|
17
|
40%
|
5.9%
|
Wimbledon
|
06/2008
|
6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
|
209
|
204
|
13
|
13
|
30.8%
|
7.7%
|
Australian Open
|
01/2009
|
7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
|
173
|
174
|
16
|
19
|
43.8%
|
31.6%
|
Madrid
|
05/2010
|
6-4 7-6(5)
|
85
|
84
|
11
|
11
|
36.4%
|
27.3%
|
Roland Garros
|
05/2011
|
7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
|
143
|
130
|
15
|
15
|
46.7%
|
33.3%
|
Tour Finals
|
11/2013
|
7-5 6-3
|
65
|
50
|
4
|
4
|
100%
|
25%
|
Federer also has struggled to beat certain foes like Andy Murray (14-11 record) and David Nalbandian (11-8 record), who are close to even with him in their matchups. Both Novak (21-9) and Rafa (16-6) have dominated Murray for the most part. Since Djokovic is virtually even with both Federer (22-22) and Nadal (24-23) head to head, I would choose Djokovic over Federer if I needed to win one match against any random opponent. But assuming everyone is in top form, Nadal might be my first choice in any head-to-head matchup, albeit only by a hair over Djokovic. Rafa gets the edge here because we also have to account for his sterling 22-1 win-loss in Davis Cup singles play and his Olympic Gold medal (undefeated 6-0 at Beijing in 2008). When we look at winning percentage across Grand Slams, Masters Series 1000, and World Tour Finals, Djokovic (267-58) and Nadal (302-64) are virtually tied with an 83.1% winning percentage, while Federer trails them by a small margin at 81.2%.
Nadal has moderate trouble on certain surfaces like indoor hard courts and outdoor grass, while Djokovic and Federer have both demonstrated the ability to adapt well to any surface. That is why Nadal never won the Masters Cup or World Tour Finals in seven attempts. He has not survived past the second round in three of the last four Wimbledons. So even though Nadal and Federer both have some shaky weapons at times, such as Rafa’s serve or Roger’s backhand, Djokovic simply does not have any discernible weakness after he improved his fitness regimen and stopped retiring prematurely from matches in his first few years on the tour.
American tennis coach Nick Bollettieri recently wrote before the 2015 Wimbledon final: “As I go back in time (60 years) and think about all of the players I’ve had the privilege of watching, I believe Novak Djokovic’s overall game, including the mental and physical parts, may be as perfect as I’ve seen.”(5) John McEnroe, always vocal about his own opinions, placed Djokovic in his all-time top five: ‘My top four are Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger and Rafael Nadal but Novak is at number five and rising.’(6) John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, and Patrick McEnroe all raved about Djokovic’s incredible 2011 season. John called it the greatest season in tennis history; Pete said it was the best he had seen in his lifetime; Patrick praised it as the finest year since Rod Laver’s 1969 calendar slam.7 Indeed, Novak’s 2011 and 2015 seasons taken together are probably the best pair of seasons produced in the Open Era, just ahead of Roger Federer’s 2006 and 2007 seasons, in my eyes.
Even his contemporaries and biggest rivals are not shying away from lauding his efforts. After badly losing in the Doha final to Djokovic at the beginning of the 2016 season (6-1, 6-2), Nadal bluntly admitted: ‘I played against a player who did everything perfectly. I don't know anybody who's ever played tennis like this. Since I know this sport I've never seen somebody playing at this level.’(8) In the last four sets played between the two great champions, Novak has taken 24 games and Nadal has taken 9 games. Djokovic has faced one break point over the course of those four sets, while Nadal has faced twelve break points in the same span.9 Including Doha, Novak Djokovic has now gone to 16 consecutive tournament finals, third behind Roger Federer’s streak of 17 finals from 2005-’06 and Ivan Lendl’s string of 18 finals from 1981-’82.10
Federer himself conceded Novak’s consistent greatness in an amusing but serious way after finishing runner-up a second straight year to him on grass at Wimbledon. This was the first question he answered at Centre Court right after his defeat to Djokovic, which is referenced by the New York Times11 in an abridged quotation:
Reporter: Roger, it was a tough day today, you threw everything at him, but some days you just have to say too good?
Roger: Yeah, absolutely, I think Novak played not only great today but the whole two weeks plus the whole year, plus last year, plus the year before that so… you deserve it, well done Novak!
If I had to provide my list to a panel of experts of the Top 10 tennis players, I would have Novak and Roger in the first two spots, followed by Nadal and Borg, the two most dominant on clay, with Laver rounding out the top five. Next, I would select Connors sixth, Lendl seventh, Sampras eighth, McEnroe ninth, and Agassi tenth. Becker, Edberg, and Wilander would be close behind Agassi, and Andy Murray should be in the Top 20, and probably the Top 15. Connors has the most match wins (1254) and second most major victories (233) in history. He has a winning percentage of 78% or better on every surface, which is unbelievable given the length of his career. His .500 or better record in Slam finals against Borg (2-2), McEnroe (1-1), and Lendl (2-0), convinces me to put him higher than anybody outside the Top 5. Sampras may have had greater talent, but in terms of performance it is hard to place any American ahead of Jimmy Connors, including John McEnroe, who at his peak (1984) was at least as good as Sampras was during his best year (1994). Also, I am not the only one suggesting that Djokovic and Federer may be the two best ever - Carl Bialik and Benjamin Morris proposed the same viewpoint on the eve of last season’s US Open final between the two titans.12
My opinion is that Roger and Novak are neck-and-neck as the two finest and most consistent tennis racquet wielders of the Open Era. Federer had the advantage of lesser competition in his earlier years, but also has accomplished more than Djokovic due to his seniority and ageless longevity. Whether Novak can match Roger’s ability to adapt his game and continue playing well after the age of 30, it remains to be seen. Given Djokovic’s fitness level, it is hard to bet against him. Nonetheless, right here and right now, Roger Federer deserves to be called the greatest player in the history of men’s tennis. However, five years from now, say in 2020, I think Novak Djokovic will be regarded as the the best to ever play this game, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/01/21/wawrinka-ousts-djokovic-in-aussie-quarters.html
2. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/jun/23/jimmy-connors-pete-sampras-wimbledon
3. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/French-Open-Djokovic-Nadal-Renew-Rivalry-in-Quarterfinals--305885551.html
4. http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/federer-not-greatest-yet-wilander/2006/06/15/1149964673956.html
5. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/wimbledon-2015-nick-bollettieri-why-novak-djokovic-is-the-perfect-tennis-machine-10381894.html
6. http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/33502214
7. http://novakdjokovic.com/en/news/media/pete-sampras-novaks-season-best-ive-seen-in-my-lifetime/
8. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/nadal-lauds-djokovic-performance-in-doha-2016-final
9. http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RafaelNadal
10. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/london-2015-saturday-preview-federer-faces-djokovic-for-title
11. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/sports/tennis/wimbledon-2015-novak-djokovic-wins-wimbledon-title-beating-roger-federer.html
12. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/
