Reem With A View

"Names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, and not the essence to the names, since things come first and names afterwards." – Galileo

The Best Decade of All Time in Tennis

In no generation or decade in the Open Era have the top active players won 91% of all grand slams!
Never before. Not the Agassi, Sampras, Courier period nor the Connors, Borg and Mcenroe period
Not even the Wilander, Lendl, Edberg and Becker period.
Have taken a top player to mean anyone who has AT LEAST won 4 grand slams in the Open Era in their entire career!
Agassi, Courier and Sampras together won LESS THAN 60% of all grand slams.
Borg, Connors, Vilas and McEnroe were better and they CUMULATIVELY won 75% of all slams.
The immediate next group of Connors, McEnroe, Wilander won just 83% of their slams.
Even the highly competitive 80s era of Wilander, Lendl, Becker and Edberg together won just 82% of all slams.
Never before have the top tennis players DOMINATED a decade like this.
This is a phenomenal 91% win rate in all grand slams.
And the best part? the TIME PERIOD of this era is now 9 YEARS!!!  so its not like a brief 2-3 year bright period. Its freaking 9 YEARS!!!
(Click on the image to see full size).

Filed under: Sport, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will Nadal burn out at age 26 like Bjorn Borg?

I found interesting similarities in the Grand Slam runs between Sampras and Federer as well as Borg and Nadal in terms of their Age vs Slams won!

(Note that have taken 31 yrs as maximum age considering Sampras retired at that age for apples to apples comparison for the 14 slam win rate).

Some important pointers:

1. Pete Sampras had only 3 wins in his last 16 slams.

2. Roger Federer needs only ONE win in his next 15 slams to equal Sampras and just 2 to break the world record.

3.  Nadal has more than 35 slams to beat Sampras, and is close to beating Borg’s slam total by age 23

4. Borg had the highest rate of slams by age 23 and played only 3 slams a year. He never played a lot of Aussie opens (except early on in 1974 types ) as he kept losing US Opens . Borg didn’t feel Aussie Open was important unless he won the US Open.

Nadal seems to be slightly behind Borg’s run rate. And Federer’s win rate is next to Borg despite playing way longer schedules. Unbelievable.

Nadal too may burn out like Borg especially because his game is more Physical than Federer’s and the body takes punishment on hard courts. Nadal also won’t be able to maintain the speed and power beyond age 25-26…as the tennis schedules are too long now days. Federer’s game like Sampras suits long term play.

Grand Slam wins

Grand Slam wins

But I feel even if Nadal wins 15 slams and Federer wins the French, they can still be called greatest only of the MODERN era as people forget Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall were banned for more than 44 Slams due to them turning PRO… Rosewall lost peak 11 years of his life. It was Laver and Rosewall’s efforts which led to the Open era in the first place and modern players from Borg to Nadal and Federer have to be thankful for them. Between them, Laver and Rosewall would have won 20+ slams if allowed to play as there was no one close to them. And it isn’t their problem that Hardcourts weren’t provided for Slams, as either would have won for SURE if there was that surface provided.  It is for this reason, that historians will ALWAYS place Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall as the Greatest Tennis Players of ALL TIME.  To beat them, the minimum no. of slam which Federer or Nadal must win are 20, else there is no comparison for the unfair way in which Laver/Rosewall were prevented for 44 Slams simply because they turned Pro.

For a detailed perspective, please also read the following article:

Filed under: Sport, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greatest Wimbledon Final in History

The Federer-Nadal final yesterday was so epic in scale, quality, tension & drama that it made the Becker-Edberg finals of 1988-90, the Borg-McEnroe final of 1980 and any Sampras-Agassi final look terribly “average”. These 2 guys are playing at a level, unseen in tennis history… The only sporting equivalent I can think of is Zinedine Zidane’s unbelievable level of play & ball control in the France-Brazil quarterfinal in the 2006 Worldcup and Zidane again in the 1998 World cup final against Brazil.

Yes, there is no comparison in Tennis…yet. Maybe the next U.S.Open, where Federer is again favorite (since the hard court is way faster than grass) will hopefully see a similar final.

Though Nadal won, to be fair to Roger, with the light so poor the last 4 games of the 5th set was simply a matter of luck…They should’ve stopped play. Similarly, it would have been unfair to Nadal too if he had lost the match instead of Roger. The light was terrible and not fit for professional play.

What does the future now hold for ROGER FEDERER? For starters, the grass is so slow nowadays, that baseliners will continue to dominate Wimbledon like the French Open. But Rafa Nadal, who dominates on clay, is still weaker on grass, and weakest on hardcourts. The slower the court the more dominating Nadal is. In contrast, Federer’s game becomes better & better as the courts turn faster.  This means, the only way he can beat Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slams, is by going for the US and Australian Opens. Because Nadal will continue to win grass & clay, next 2-3 years.

But then again, Federer can surprise everyone by bouncing back to win not just the US and Australian this year, but next Wimbeldon as well… Nadal will end up with 7-8 French opens, and maybe 3-4 Wimbledons… but to me Roger Federer IS the greatest tennis player of all time. Remember, he is the ONLY player to win 3 GRAND SLAMS in the same year, THRICE.

Filed under: Sport, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


%d bloggers like this: