The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

ATP Year End – 18 Nov 2012          By Charles Friesen

So apparently Novak Djokovic is #1 for the year.  It’s much less convincing than his performance from last year when he won 10 titles and only lost 6 times – half of those in the last 4 weeks of the season.  But as an accomplishment for a 25 year-old it’s incredible and he should be congratulated.

This year his W-L record is 75-12 or 0.862.  Last year it was 0.921.  He won only one of the grand slams, the Australian, but saying ONLY one grand slam means he is in very exalted company.  This is perhaps all the more incredible considering the era he is playing in – teeming with Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and the dogged Andy Murray.  To claim 5 career grand slam titles (so far) in this era of all-time greats is truly an accomplishment.  In his 5 title runs he has beaten Federer and Nadal three times each.

This year the four grand slam titles were split 4 ways.  Remarkably, I predicted this in last year’s yearend write up when I said that I expected the blood and honours would flow equally among the top four.  I suppose I have to get lucky once in a while.  In this year of parity, is crowning Djokovic as yearend #1 justified?  Roger Federer has declared publicly that he thinks Djokovic deserves the spot.  The numerical record is not as clear.  Federer and Ferrer have as many or more titles.

ATP titles 2012

Player	Titles	GS Titles
David Ferrer	7
Roger Federer	6	1
Novak Djokovic	6	1
Rafael Nadal	4	1
Juan Martin Del Potro	4
Juan Monaco	4
Andy Murray	3	1
Tomas Berdych	2
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga	2
Milos Raonic	2
Nicolas Almagro	2
Marin Cilic	2
Andy Roddick	2
John Isner	2
Andreas Seppi	2

Considering the majors does not resolve the issue.  Each of the big four won one.  Federer made one major final, Nadal, and Murray each made two, but Djokovic edges ahead slightly with 3 GS finals.  However, Murray and Federer also played for the Olympic final – arguably the 5^th biggest tournament of the year despite a points allocation from the ATP tour that puts it below a 1000 event.  Given the importance the players seemed to give to it, I’d say the Olympics was pretty much on par with a slam event, maybe just a whisker less.

With his victory at the Olympics, Murray would seem to have won 2 of the biggest 5 tournaments of the year.  Why shouldn’t he be considered number 1?  I suppose it was the rest of his year that paled in comparison.  He won only one other title (besides the Olympics and US Open), in Brisbane.  This shows up in his win percentage for the year.

Matches Won 2012

	W	L	W Rate
Nadal	42	6	0.875
Djokovic	75	12	0.862
Federer	71	12	0.855
Ferrer	76	15	0.835
Del Potro	65	17	0.793
Murray	56	16	0.778
Berdych	61	23	0.726
Tsonga	55	25	0.688
Tipsarevic	57	28	0.671

Murray’s win percentage ranks only 6^th among top ATP players.  Murray is clearly not on par with the rest of the big four.  In this metric Nadal is #1, but this is somewhat distorted.  Nadal stopped playing after Wimbledon when knee problems forced him to abandon the rest of the year.  Thru Wimbledon, Federer was 46-6 or 0.885, ahead of Nadal over the same time period.  But the end of the year tends to be Nadal’s worst stretch and I suspect he would be 3^rd or so on this list at best had he played the whole year (last year was 0.821).

I’m sure that Murray would rather take the US Open and the Olympics, but this is the first year of the last 5 that he did not win two of the nine Masters 1000 events.

Masters 1000 events won:

	Murray	Djokovic	Nadal	Federer
2008	2	2	3
2009	2	1	3	2
2010	2		3	1
2011	2	5	1	1
2012		3	2	3
Total	8	11	12	7

The top 4 players are very close over the last 5 years, but Nadal and Djokovic are clearly a little ahead of Murray and Federer.  Federer is 5 or 6 years older than the rest of the group (he won 13 Masters 1000s in the 5 years previous to the table), but I think this shows that Murray is just a whisker below the others.  The message is borne out in considering total titles won as well.

ATP titles won:

	Murray	Djokovic	Nadal	Federer
2008	5	4	8	4
2009	6	5	5	4
2010	2	2	7	5
2011	5	10	3	4
2012	3	6	4	6
Total	21	27	27	23

Again Djokovic and Nadal are slightly better than Federer and Murray.  Despite keeping up in the last two metrics, looking at matches won-lost over the last 5 years Djokovic falls slightly behind Nadal.

Matches won 2008-2012:

	Match Wins	Match Losses	W-L  Rate
Nadal	330	56	0.855
Federer	327	64	0.836
Djokovic	348	72	0.829
Murray	282	74	0.792

Again Murray is bottom of the heap.  He clearly lags a bit behind the rest of the big four.  What’s amazing to me is that Federer is holding his own against the rest of the big four, despite being older.  Typically tennis players peak at about age 25 (more on this, below).  Djokovic and Murray are 25 and Nadal is 26 – all at the peaks of their careers.  Federer, however, is past his prime.  It shows how great he is that he not only dominated his own generation, but he is among the top in the next as well. 

Nadal is tops in every category for this generation.  This is accentuated when looking at career wins and losses.  Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal all have about the same number of losses over their careers, but they differ greatly in the wins column.

Career wins and losses in ATP main draws:

	Career Wins	Career Losses	W-L  Rate
Nadal	583	122	0.827
Djokovic	469	123	0.792
Murray	379	123	0.755

The losses are virtually identical, but the main difference here is that Nadal is about 100 wins ahead of Djokovic, who is about another 100 wins ahead of Murray.  This is perhaps not rocket science, but it really shows the overall difference in accomplishment (and possibly talent) among these players.  Perhaps the last halves of their pro careers will rewrite this somewhat, but for now, there is no question that Nadal is best of these three and Djokovic is second.

Offering some proof that the typical ATP career peak is at age 25, consider titles won at each age.

This graph demonstrates that the peak of most top ATP players is at age 25.  The inclusion set for this graph is all players who have won at least 20 professional titles in the open era or have won the most titles for a particular year.  The numbers of titles each player won per year form the data set.  The three players with less than 20 titles won are Rios (18 titles), Safin (15), and Ferrer (18), who were the title leaders in 1998, 2000, and 2012, respectively. 

Looking at the graph for GS titles only, the story is similar.  The data set is all players who have won at least 4 slam titles, starting with the first Wimbledon in 1877.[1]

The peak is actually a little earlier in this graph, at age 24.  Suffice it to say that overall the peak for male players seems to be about 24 or 25.

Here’s one more graph on this subject.  It is the correlation between age and yearend computer ranking.  The dataset includes all players who have won at least one slam title and whose yearend top 10 careers fell in the ATP computer era, that is, they did not achieve a yearend ranking in the top 10 before 1973 (as agreed to by most journalists), when the computer rankings began.  So, for example, the data includes Panatta, Vilas, and Connors, but not Orantes, Smith, or Newcombe.

In this graph the peak is even earlier at age 23.  This means that most GS winners achieved their best rankings very early.  Like the other graphs this index tails off precipitously after age 30.

Novak Djokovic

Getting back to the question of who is #1 for 2012, I think Nadal can be ruled out for missing the last half of the year.  Murray is ruled out for a lower overall win-loss rate and less total titles.  That leaves Federer and Djokovic.  With the same number of titles, a slightly better win-loss rate, 3 grand slam finals for the year, and a win at the yearend championships (YEC), the choice for Djokovic becomes clear. Their head to head for 2012 was 3-2 in favour of Djokovic, which shows how close they are and the slight edge that Djokovic deserves.

It seems ancient history but it is only 5 months ago that Djokovic was one match from the modern Grand Slam, (holding all four slam titles simultaneously), when he played for the Roland Garros final.  He rallied strongly in the third and fourth sets and appeared to be on the verge of dominating Nadal on French clay when rain intervened.  When the match resumed, Djokovic had lost his momentum and Nadal prevailed.

With a spirited performance against a peaking Andy Murray in the US Open final, Djokovic may have lost, but he showed he was the man to beat.  Somewhere along the line he has established his presence as the gatekeeper at the top of the game.  He may have been beaten by a concerted effort but he was the highest and final hurdle to clear.  He went one better at the World Tour Finals taking down Murray, a surging Juan Martin Del Potro, and Roger Federer.

So that makes two years running as yearend #1.  It’s not a dynasty yet, but it is the same number of years Nadal has finished #1 (2008, 2010).  Djokovic is consolidating his position at the top.  Can Djokovic continue to hang on to #1 in the future?  Age wise he is at the typical peak for grand slam winners.  However his ascendance to the top was delayed by the presence of Federer and Nadal monopolizing the top of the game in his early 20’s.  Reaching the top as late as age 24 may mean he will hang onto it longer.  But there are a number of talented competitors who will do their best to prevent that.

Looking at possible triumphs for next year, the Australian where he’s won 3 times may be the most likely place to win big again.  He’s also been in the SF of the last 6 US Opens, including 4 finals.  He seems to be just that little bit better on hard courts than most of his rivals.  I think it reasonable that he could win one or two slams next year.  Wimbledon is not out of the question, but the French will likely remain out of reach, unless Nadal doesn’t play it.

Overall I expect Djokovic to play well everywhere, remain the man to beat, and end 2013 at number 1 again.  If he succeeds in being yearend #1 for 3 straight years, he will have to begin being mentioned among the all-time greats of the game.

Roger Federer

2012 was a resurrection for Federer.  After not winning a major for 9 slam tournaments (since Aus 2010) Federer tasted the sweet draught of success at Wimbledon.  He fought off a strong charge from Andy Murray in the final and played sublime tennis in turning around the 2^nd and 3^rd sets to win in four.  Backed by his strong play at the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, he retook the #1 computer ranking and held it for 17 weeks.  He moved past Sampras with 286 weeks at #1 and on to a record 302 weeks on top.

So what is 2013 likely to hold for Federer?  I think he will be hard-pressed to win another major, although that might depend on whether Nadal plays.  Without Nadal, not only is one tricky matchup eliminated, but there are really only two of the big four left to beat.  Plus Del Potro.  Del Potro beat Roger twice at the end of the year indoors – which arguably favours Federer – and not only indoors, but at two of his favourite locales – the yearend championships and his hometown of Basel.

Federer may have the best career hardcourt record of all time[2], but at this stage of his career I’d put him behind Djokovic, Murray, and maybe even Delpo on hard.  That makes his best chances at Wimbledon and the French.  I rank the top 4 about equally on grass at this stage of their careers.  On clay Nadal is the heavy favourite at the French, but if he doesn’t play then Roger and Novak are probably 50-50 to win it – their head to head on clay is 3-3.  I think Roger COULD still win any slam, but increasingly I think the odds are with the young.

In 2012 Roger surpassed Jimmy Connors for the most match wins at slam events.  In fact, Roger is now the all-time leader at the Australian Open:

Match wins at Australian:

	Win-Loss
Roger Federer	63-9
Stefan Edberg	56-10
Jack Crawford	52-17
Andre Agassi	48-5
Ivan Lendl	48-10
Roy Emerson	46-9
John Newcombe	46-15
Pete Sampras	45-9
John Bromwich	44-11
Adrian Quist	44-15
Ken Rosewall	43-10

Federer currently stands second in wins at the French Open with 54 to Vilas’ 56.  Nadal is 4^th with 52.  At Wimbledon Federer is third with 66 wins[3], but is still 18 wins behind Connors who has a best 84 wins.  If Federer competes in all the slam events this year, he will tie Stefan Edberg at 56 for most consecutive slam singles appearances.

Andy Murray

At long last the sweet relief of victory at the highest level.  The elusive slam title has finally been captured.  Andy Murray will be well-deserved to rest on his laurels a little for 2013.  He finally plugged that aching hole in the British consciousness becoming the first slam winner since Fred Perry in 1936, ending the 76 year drought. 

Perry himself was seen the same way – as a rescuer of moribund British tennis.   Wimbledon hadn’t had a male British champion since Arthur Gore in 1909, a gap of 25 years till Perry’s 1934 victory.  Gore however was a bit of an anomaly, at age 41 the oldest ever male singles winner at Wimbledon or any other grand slam.  Described as extremely determined, he was the last gasp of the old British tennis. 

As the inventors of the game, the British enjoyed a monopoly on the best players during the first 20-25 years of tennis history. Seven-time consecutive US Championships winner Richard Sears proved no match for his British contemporaries in the 1880’s, particularly the Renshaw brothers, Willie (7 times Wimbledon champion) and Ernest.  British hegemony at the top of the game continued with Joshua Pim and Wilfred Baddeley and the eventual emergence of the Doherty brothers, Reggie (Wimbledon 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900) and Laurie (Wim 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, US 1903). 

Just as Reggie was establishing a name for himself as the greatest player since William Renshaw (and possibly of all time, to that date), a powerful American came on the scene and ran through the US Championships three times (1898, 1899, 1900).  He was Malcolm Whitman.  Along with the doubles team of Dwight Davis and Holcombe Ward, and singles powerhouse William Larned (US 1901, 1902, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911), the Americans felt confident they were as good as anyone in the world and challenged the Brits to a challenge of nations in 1900 – that came to be known as the Davis Cup.

The top-ranked Doherty’s were not disposed to travel to the US and a second-flight team was sent to put down the colonial upstarts.  Much to English surprise, the Americans won.  Travel could not be arranged in 1901, but in 1902 the Brits decided to mount a concerted effort to prove that British tennis was still the standard of the world.  The top-ranked Doherty’s were sent but the tie was probably lost on a poor coaching decision not to play the newly minted Wimbledon champion, Laurie Doherty in singles.  The Americans again won the cup.  In the decisive match, Whitman took down 4-time Wimbledon champion Reggie Doherty in straight sets.  Reggie also lost in the US final, this time to Larned.

It became an open question as to where the best tennis talent in the world was residing, and who was likely the world #1 began to be debated – probably for the first time seriously.  Whitman, Larned, Reggie, and Laurie were all candidates.

Now thoroughly rebuffed, the British sent their strongest possible team to the US for 1903 and played (now two-time Wimbledon champion) Laurie in singles.  The Brits demolished the US team without losing a match and retained the Davis Cup until 1907 when they finally surrendered it to a new tennis power, Australasia (as the combined team of Australia and New Zealand was then called).  Laurie went on to win the US Championships final in 1903 with a convincing victory over Larned.  Laurie was clearly #1 in the world, holding all the major championships that year – Wimbledon, the US, the Davis Cup, all in singles and doubles, the closest thing to a grand slam in his day.[4]   But it could no longer be said that the Brits in general were obviously superior to their American counterparts. 

In an era when most players did not make the arduous ship journey to play in other major national championships, the Davis Cup became the vehicle for judging the best or #1 player(s) in the world.  So the Davis Cup was hugely significant at that time.  That aura of importance has certainly faded, but it gave the Davis Cup enough momentum as a tournament to find a permanent place in the tennis calendar.  Now we have an international tour and a computer to help us decide who #1 is.

After Laurie didn’t defend his Wimbledon and Davis Cup titles in 1907, Gore hung on to win two more Wimbledons but the death knell of Britain as a dominant tennis force was sounded.  The game became decidedly international with the US, Australia, and France playing larger parts and gradually more and more nations could be said to have top flight players.  So Perry in 1934 was seen as the resurrection of former glory for Britain, in much the same way that Murray is seen now to hearken back to the good old days of Fred Perry.

But I doubt that Murray will enjoy 8 slam wins the way Perry did.  The field he is facing is very deep and it seemed to take a herculean effort for Murray to mount the slam summit this past summer.  He can probably gain another major title or two in his career, but the numbers do not suggest he will become a dominant #1 or many-slam winner the way Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have.  He has an excellent shot at Wimbledon – at least equal to his chief rivals.  But at the US Open and Australian, at each of which he has twice made the final, I would place him slightly behind the superior hard court record of Djokovic.

Hard court records against main rivals:

	vs. rest of top 4	vs. Ferrer, Del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych
Djokovic	29-23 (0.558)	28-8 (0.778)
Federer	26-24 (0.520)	30-10 (0.750)
Murray	20-22 (0.476)	17-4 (0.810)
Nadal	16-22 (0.421)	18-11 (0.621)

I think there’s a good chance Murray will win another slam in 2013, and if not, then in 2014.  Time will tell.  Perhaps he can make an assault on the #1 ranking, as well.  Federer could begin to fade with age and if Nadal doesn’t play and Djokovic falters, Murray could have a chance at the top.  But that’s a lot of what-if’s, so on balance, I think he will be hard-pressed to gain #1.

Rafael Nadal

The big question is if Nadal will come back and what shape his game will be in when he does.  It is truly a shame that someone of his talent and capability should not get to experience a full career – which is already just a few short years in the modern game.

To all appearances, Nadal started his 2012 campaign intent on overtaking Djokovic.  They waged an intense battle in the Australian final, narrowly won by Djokovic 7-5 in the fifth.  But when the clay season dawned, Nadal avenged the two defeats on clay he suffered last year at Novak’s hands, beating him soundly in Monte Carlo, Rome, and the French.  Nadal appeared to be on the upswing, ready to wage a fierce battle for #1 for the year.  His four titles through Garros were already better than his whole haul from the previous year.

But then the wheels fell off.  The inspired play of Lukas Rosol could well have beaten a healthy Nadal, but the loss was a wake-up call for Nadal that he could not compete at the highest level without healthy knees.  Nadal had made the finals of 8 of the last 9 slams. 

The last time he was shocked in a slam event was the French 2009 (Soderling 4R) and he took the next slam off, regrouped and came back stronger than ever in 2010.  Can he do it again?  I have my doubts.  I suspect he may be forced to play a reduced, or more gentle, schedule – and ‘more gentle’ would probably mean more clay and less hard.

Till now, Nadal has been posting the stats of a true prodigy, second only to Borg in many categories.  But this year he has slipped slightly.  He falls behind Federer in both overall titles and slam titles won at this age (26.5).

ATP titles won at yearend in which player turned 26:

Player	Yearend age 26 titles	Yearend age 25 titles
Connors	71	61
McEnroe	67	59
Borg	63	63
Lendl	62	53
Federer	53	45
Sampras	52	44
Nadal	50	46

Slam titles through 26 years of age:

Player	Slam titles thru age 26	Slam titles thru age 25
Federer	12	11
Borg	11	11
Sampras	11	10
Nadal	11[5]	10
McEnroe, Wilander	7	7

Without doubt Nadal, Federer, and Sampras have played on a very different tour than the one that existed in the 1970’s.  Then, the top players rarely played the same events as each other – maybe 3-6 events per year.  Now, the top players play 13-16 of the same events.  This makes it much harder to win a tournament now, so I think Nadal’s 50 victories by age 26 is probably more impressive than Connors’ 71 at the same age.

On the other hand, today’s players play more slam events than did their 1970’s contemporaries.  Through age 25, Connors, Borg, and McEnroe played an average of 20.3 slam tournaments each.  Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer played 28.3 each by the same age.  Those 8 more tournaments mean more opportunities to win for today’s players.

So Nadal is falling behind the pace set by Federer a little, but there is at least one Federer record he could break.  It is the number of consecutive years a player wins at least one slam title.  Currently, Borg, Sampras, Federer, and Nadal all share the record with 8.  If Nadal wins a slam in 2013, he will occupy that territory alone at 9 years.

Looking into 2013, I expect that if he plays, the Australian will be a regrouping time for Nadal.  I think a QF or SF likely there.  He should have time to find his game on clay for the French and his superlative record there makes him the heavy favourite.  If he wins there, he will be the first male player to win 8 of any one slam title (caveat follows).  At Wimbledon I think he is about equal to Federer, Djokovic, and Murray.  There is very little to choose among them on grass at this stage.  Murray is ascending on the surface, Federer is descending… anything could happen.  At the US Open I think Nadal will be out-competed by the hard court specialists.  I think Djokovic, Murray, Federer, and even Del Potro will probably be more than he can handle in New York in 2013, especially if Nadal plays a reduced hard court schedule – which I think is likely.

So here’s the caveat about 8 slam titles.  Roy Emerson won the most ever Australian titles with 6.  The most ever Wimbledons are the 7 held by William Renshaw, Sampras, and Federer.  At the US, the number is also 7, posted by Richard Sears, William Larned, and Bill Tilden.  The Open Era (since 1968) records are
Australian: Agassi, Federer (4);
French: Nadal (7);
Wimbledon: Sampras, Federer (7);
US: Connors, Sampras, Federer (5). 
In some ways, the Open Era records are the only ones that really count, since professionals, who were the best players in the world, were not allowed to play slams before 1968.

Breaking away from the dominant amateur game, professional tennis began in earnest in 1927 with the first travelling road shows of top tennis talent, and the founding of the US Professional Championships.   It took a few years for the best players to migrate to the professional ranks, but after about 1935, the best player of the year was almost always a pro and not an amateur.  Don Budge in 1938 is possibly the only exception.  So the slams from the 1930’s on did not have the best tennis talent. 

The slam tournaments had only been recognized by the ILTF[6] as preeminent from 1924 on, so any notion of a Grand Slam before that was not possible.  Prior to 1924, the ILTF had recognized 3 world championships in 1913, the World Grass Court Championships (WGCC) at Wimbledon, the World Hard Court Championships (WHCC)[7] at St. Cloud in Paris, and the World Covered Court Championships (WCCC)[8] whose location shifted around northern Europe.  The Americans rightly objected to these “World” designations since the tournaments were all located in Europe and did not give American players a fair chance at recognition, inter-continental travel being so difficult in those days.  They argued the US Championships should be included as a ‘world championship’ event.  The ILTF eventually acquiesced, naming the modern slam tournaments, starting in 1924.

Of course, the national championships of Australia, France, England, and the US existed before 1924.  They were prestigious tournaments but there was no notion of slamhood attached to them.  Looking at the list of winners for Wimbledon or the US Championships is relatively straightforward, even back to their founding years of 1877 and 1881, respectively.  The French championships history is trickier.  When the French tennis federation attached their new preeminent ‘slam’ tournament to an existing history they chose a French national tournament played in Paris that had been open to members of French clubs only.  This was the so-called ‘French closed’ tournament, that had begun in 1891.  It had the longest continuous history of a French national tournament so perhaps that tempted the federation to name this their previously preeminent tournament.

However, there seemed no question in any of the players’ minds that the ‘open’ championships of France hitherto had been the WHCC played in Paris from 1912 to 1923. (The 1924 edition had morphed into the Olympics, but that is another digression.)  So, if counting slams before 1924 is attempted (I would say they shouldn’t be counted until 1968), WHCC titles would be a better place to begin than French ‘closed’ championships.  There is further evidence that a French ‘open’[9] championship was held indoors in Paris at Easter prior to the inception of the WHCC in 1912.  This indoor ‘open’ tournament began in either 1891 (Wilfred Baddeley, Lawn Tennis, 1895) or 1895 (Wallis Meyers, Lawn Tennis at Home and Abroad, 1903).  It’s clear from their texts that these authors regarded the indoor tournament as the ‘open championships of France’.

Tracing the line of the French championships from the indoor ‘open’, through the WHCC, and to the French Championships beginning in 1925, there is no one to challenge the record of 7 French championships currently held by Nadal:  Josiah Ritchie and Max Decugis each won 4 of the indoor titles, Tony Wilding won 2 of the indoors and 2 WHCCs.  Henri Cochet won one WHCC, 4 French Championships, (and one French closed, 1922), and Borg won 6 French Opens after 1968.

However, tracing the line through the French ‘closed’ championships, Max Decugis won 8 titles between 1903 and 1914.  I firmly believe these should not be counted as slam titles, but they are the only possible caveat to Nadal being the first (if he can do it) to hold 8 of any one slam title.

As mentioned above, Nadal is within 4 matches of overtaking Vilas as winner of most matches at the French Open, but he will have to win 2 more matches than Federer if he is to be listed at the head of that record.  Federer and Nadal share the record for most common slam final rivalry.  Nadal features in two of the top 8 GS final rivalries.

Most frequent opponents in GS finals (men):

Number of GS finals	Players	Results
8	Nadal : Federer	6 : 2
6	Tilden : Johnston	5 : 1
5	Laver : Emerson	3 : 2
5	Wilander : Lendl	3 : 2
5	Djokovic : Nadal	3 : 2
5	Lacoste : Borotra	4 : 1
5	Sampras : Agassi	4 : 1
5	Emerson : Stolle	5 : 0

Nadal-Federer is tied with Serena-Venus for 2^nd all-time most frequent GS final, with Navratilova-Evert on top with 14 final meetings.

Nadal still leads the decade (2010’s) count for slam titles with 5.  The top 4 have won all the titles this decade.  In comparison there were 8 different slam winners after the first 3 years in each of the 1990’s and 2000’s.

A final word on the Big 4 before moving on to their pretenders.  They currently occupy the top 4 spots on the computer, which they have done more or less continuously since September 2008 when Murray climbed that high for the first time.  Djokovic had made it a Big 3 in July 2007.  But there have been a few interlopers into the top 4, notably Del Potro in 2010 and Soderling in 2011.  However, the big 4 have absolutely nailed shut the top 3 spots on the computer for what will be 282 weeks (5.5 years) by year’s end.  No other player has been able to penetrate the top 3 ranking during this time.  This far outstrips the next longest streak of 197 weeks.

Computer top 3 hegemony by 4 players:

Players	Weeks holding top 3 computer rankings	Time period
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray	282	Aug 2007 – Dec 2012
Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander	197*	Aug 1982 – Jun 1986
Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe	165*	Jun 1978 – Aug 1981
Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl	163*	Apr 1979 – May 1982
Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker	126	Feb 1989 – Jul 1991

*a few weeks unconfirmed

This would seem to indicate that the current top 4 are the strongest in the history of the computer rankings.

The Second Echelon

It seems that 2012 has seen the consolidation of a second echelon in men’s tennis.  The big 4 are a league of their own, but as impenetrable to pretenders from below has been the second four, those ranked #5-8.

Head of this class is David Ferrer.  2012 has been the best year of his career.  This is the third year he finishes at world #5 (2007, 2011), but his title haul this year (7) outstrips the other two years combined.  It’s also the first time he’s won a 1000 level event (Paris).  It’s his 8^th straight year in the yearend top 20.

He’s certainly showed no signs of slowing down at age 30.  He would have an outside chance at Roland Garros if Nadal didn’t play, but it would likely necessitate his first ever victory against Federer.  Against Djokovic he has less to fear, holding a 3-1 head-to-head career edge on clay.  Another 1000 tournament would be a great outcome for him in 2013 and a slam final is not out of the question if the draw breaks in his favour.

#6 Tomas Berdych finishes in the yearend top 10 for the third straight year.  This is the first year he claims 2 ATP titles, having won one in 6 of the last 8 years.  The highlight of his year was probably his victory over Federer in the US Open quarterfinals.  He has 5 victories over Federer, 3 over Nadal, 4 over Murray, and 1 over Djokovic – so he can definitely cause trouble for the top players.  When he’s on, he hits bombs to the corners and can outplay anyone.  But his average level is a little below that of the big four.  Asking him to beat 2 or 3 of them on the slam stage to claim a major title is probably too much, but with some luck in the draw a major is not unthinkable.  He’s 27 now, so should have 2 or 3 more years in the top 10.

Juan Martin Del Potro is #7 and has been coming back slowly from the wrist injury that felled him in early 2010 –coming back on a pace not dissimilar to Maria Sharapova’s.  If the parallel holds, Del Potro should rejoin the winner’s circle at slams in 2013, as Sharapova did in 2012.  There were encouraging signs.  He claimed 4 titles during the year and beat Federer twice.

Delpo is definitely strongest on hard courts and should have a reasonable shot at the Australian and US Opens.  He is probably not as strong on hard as Djokovic, Murray, and Federer, but on a good day could beat any of them.  Clay and grass do not favour him as much, although he has made SF at Garros once.

Rounding out the top 8 is Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.  After seeming to be steadily improving over the last few years, 2012 felt to me like treading water for Tsonga.  Perhaps he has reached ‘his level’.  He won 13 matches in the slams, just like last year, and two tournaments over all, also like last year.  His explosive game is big enough to possibly take him to a slam title, especially at Wimbledon where he can serve and volley effectively.  He made SF this year at Wimbledon, but is just a notch back of the big 4.  At 27 he has two or three years left to make the push for a major.  With his talent, it’s where he should be aiming.

The Best of the Rest

Janko Tipsarevic seems destined to lurk around 9 or 10 where he has been for the last 2 years.  After finishing 2006-10 ranked about 50, last year’s top 10 finish at age 27 was a surprise.  There’s no reason he can’t continue to stay near the top 10 in 2013 as he turns 29, and for another year or so after that.  But he should expect pressure from below and little opening above.

Gasquet’s re-entry into the yearend top 10 is a total surprise to me.  I’d thought he was destined to wallow in the 30’s indefinitely with other talented under-achievers like Ernests Gulbis, Alexandr Dolgopolov, and maybe Grigor Dimitrov.  But his march upwards over the last 3 years has been steady, 52, 30, 19, to 10 this year.  His past record provides little hope that he will hang around, but it would be great to see him make another slam SF like he did at Wimbledon in 2007.

Looking for up and coming young guns, it’s remarkable that there are no teenagers in the top 200.  The highest ranked 20 year old is Bernard Tomic at #51.  There is still an excellent chance he could one day make the top 10 or challenge for the very top, and help to push Murray and Djokovic before they hit 30.

Ryan Harrison is still just 20 and ranked 70.  He should be striving for the top 20 or slightly higher in the next year or two.  Ditto Grigor Dimitrov, ranked 48 at age 21.

The highest ranked youngster is Milos Raonic who is 21 till December and already ranked #13.  At this age, there would appear to be nowhere to go but up.  However, I’m not convinced his game has a lot of room for improvement.  At 6’5” his movement is not world-class, although the serve is weapon.  He should creep into the top 10 in 2013 or 2014, but his game does not ring ‘top 5’ to my eyes. 

Also promising are 21-year olds Jerzy Janowicz #26 and David Goffin #47.   Jerzy first caught my attention at Wimbledon, winning 5 straight matches out of qualifying to make the 3R.  He then tore through the field at the Paris 1000 tournament wining seven straight matches out of qualifying to make the final.  He took down five top 20 players, including #3 Andy Murray, before finally succumbing to Ferrer in the final.  At 6’8” he can do serious damage if his game catches fire.  He moves well for a big man, although again I suspect a lack of nimbleness around the court will hurt him against the very best.  If he can produce more of what he’s shown, top 10 is totally reasonable for him in the near future, and he has the sort of game that could rip apart a Wimbledon draw on skidding grass.

Goffin also seemed to come out of nowhere.  He squeaked into the Roland Garros main draw as a lucky loser, won 3 matches, and then gave Federer fits in the 4R, taking the first set, and forcing the Maestro to 7-5 in the second set.  His is not a power game and at 5’11” he will struggle to keep up with today’s big baseliners and towering bomb servers.

Brian Baker deserves an honourable mention for his comeback to tennis in 2012.  His career was largely thwarted by injury.  He started the year ranked in the mid-400’s, but climbed to a yearend #61, partially on the strength of a 4R showing at Wimbledon, winning 6 straight matches out of qualifying.  He may climb a little higher in 2013, and hopefully he gets the chance to explore his talent without further interruption.

Rankings

Looking at a likely top 10 for next year, I would not pick against the current top 8.  The other two spots should be fiercely contested.  Tipsarevic is not quite a shoo-in but he is the strongest contender.  Also fighting gamely should be Gasquet currently #10, Almagro #11, Monaco #12, and Isner #14 all of whom flirted with the top 10 this year. 

 Cilic #15, Dolgopolov #18, and Nishikori #19 are all young enough and talented enough to threaten as well.  Among the young guns, Raonic #13, Janowicz #26, and Tomic #51, could find the top 10 well within reach in 2013, as could ATP Newcomer of the Year, Martin Klizan #30 although his position near the end of this list of possible contenders is not accidental.  Nor would I rule out Querrey at #22.

Overall I am not seeing a future #1 in the ranks of the young guns.  Tomic or Raonic could still surprise, but realistically I expect that the successors to the Nadal-Djokovic-Murray generation are players not yet in public consciousness.  That should mean that the current top 4 should continue to rack up slam titles for another 3-4 years at least.

As I have for all but one year since 2003 (I elevated Robin Soderling last year), I see no call to digress from the computer top 10 in naming my top 10 for the year.  Nor are my projections for 2013 likely to cause much hand-wringing, reflecting the relatively predictable nature of the men’s game of late.

Here’s a summary of my rankings, ATP rankings, and my projection for next yearend.  (Last year’s ranking in brackets.)

Charles’ 2012 Ranking	ATP 2012 Ranking	Charles’ 2013 Projection
1. Novak Djokovic (1)	1. Novak Djokovic (1)	1. Novak Djokovic (1)
2. Roger Federer (3)	2. Roger Federer (3)	2. Roger Federer (4)
3. Andy Murray (4)	3. Andy Murray (4)	3. Andy Murray (3)
4. Rafael Nadal (2)	4. Rafael Nadal (2)	4. Rafael Nadal (2)
5. David Ferrer (5)	5. David Ferrer (5)	5. Juan Martin Del Potro (6)
6. Tomas Berdych (8)	6. Tomas Berdych (7)	6. David Ferrer (8)
7. Juan Martin Del Potro ()	7. Juan Martin Del Potro (11)	7. Tomas Berdych (7)
8. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (6)	8. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (6)	8. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (5)
9. Janko Tipsarevic (10)	9. Janko Tipsarevic (9)	9. Janko Tipsarevic (9)
10. Richard Gasquet ()	10. Richard Gasquet (19)	10. Milos Raonic ()

For 2013 I’m guessing that Raonic is most likely to grab that last top 10 spot, and that Tipsarevic will hang on to his current level.  I expect Del Potro will rise closer to the top 4, but that little other will change among the 5-8 cohort.  If he has a very good year, Delpo could penetrate the top 4, although I think #1 is out of reach for at least next year, and #5 is a more realistic expectation.

If Nadal were healthy I would place him at #2 for next year, but if he plays a reduced schedule, I doubt he will gain enough points to overtake Murray or Federer.  Overall I expect Murray to have a better record than Federer off clay, or at least be better in a few big tournaments.  But Federer’s continuing mastery of clay should keep him at #2 on the computer above the Scot.

Looking at projections for next year’s grand slam events I am including projections for the top 12 at each event.

	Charles – AusOpen	Charles – French	Charles – Wimbledon	Charles – USOpen
1	Djokovic	Nadal	Murray	Djokovic
2	Murray	Djokovic	Federer	Murray
3	Federer	Federer	Nadal	Federer
4	Del Potro	Ferrer	Djokovic	Del Potro
5	Nadal	Murray	Tsonga	Nadal
6	Ferrer	Berdych	Berdych	Ferrer
7	Berdych	Del Potro	Del Potro	Berdych
8	Tsonga	Tsonga	Ferrer	Tsonga
9	Almagro	Monfils	Gasquet	Raonic
10	Gasquet	Almagro	Tipsarevic	Tipsarevic
11	Tipsarevic	Gasquet	Raonic	Cilic
12	Cilic	Cilic	Janowicz	Almagro

The bookies projections for 2013 are the average of all bookies reporting on 4 Nov 2012 at bookies.com.

	Bookies AusOpen	Bookies AO Odds	Bookies French	Bookies F Odds	Bookies Wimbledon	Bookies W Odds	Bookies USOpen	Bookies US Odds
1	Djokovic	2.60	Nadal	1.89	Djokovic	3.40	Djokovic	2.90
2	Murray	3.50	Djokovic	2.95	Murray	3.81	Murray	3.25
3	Federer	5.77	Murray	9.03	Nadal	4.83	Nadal	5.04
4	Nadal	5.78	Federer	13.90	Federer	4.92	Federer	5.99
5	Del Potro	17.75	Del Potro	18.14	Tsonga	24.20	Del Potro	14.70
6	Tsonga	30.58	Ferrer	21.86	Del Potro	26.80	Berdych	30.57
7	Berdych	40.00	Berdych	42.57	Raonic	42.30	Tsonga	34.33
8	Raonic	45.45	Tsonga	50.86	Berdych	49.00	Raonic	38.67
9	Janowicz	47.00	Raonic	75.43	Isner	64.10	Ferrer	41.71
10	Ferrer	58.42	Almagro	84.43	Ferrer	68.00	Isner	51.57
11	Tomic	83.42	Gasquet	105.86	Goffin	97.33	Tomic	68.86
12	Goffin	97.00	Monfils	133.00	Tomic	103.78	Dimitrov	79.20

I think the bookies have been too generous with Goffin and that Raonic is too highly ranked, especially on grass and clay.  At odds of less than 2.00, Nadal is a virtual shoo-in at Roland Garros.  I would say Federer’s pedigree and proven track record on clay should place him well above Murray at the French, and that Ferrer is also under-rated there.  Similar to my own prognostications, the odds are closest among the big 4 at Wimbledon.  Overall the bookies predict another year of Djomination, as do I.

---

[1] The graph includes Wimbledon since 1877, the US Chps since 1881, the Australian since 1905, and the French since 1925.

[2] Open era, as recorded on the ATP website: 1. Federer 0.832; 2. Laver 0.828; 3. Lendl 0.826; 4. Connors 0.826; 5 McEnroe 0.815; 6. Djokovic 0.809; 7. Sampras 0.804; 8. Agassi 0.790; 9. Edberg 0.788; 10. Murray 0.781

[3] Tied with Arthur Gore who played Wimbledon singles 30 times between 1888 and 1922

[4] The four tournaments that make up the grand slam were first recognized as pre-eminent by the ILTF in their 1924 (or 1925) editions.  The edict from the ILTF came in 1923, seemingly for the 1924 editions of the tournaments.  The Olympics were in Paris in 1924, and it appears that the ‘open’ version of the French Championships – which had been called the World Hard Court Championships since 1913 – were synonymous with the Olympic tennis event.

[5] If Nadal wins the Australian 2013, this could become 12

[6] The International Lawn Tennis Federation was the forerunner to the modern ITF

[7] “Hard court” was the old name for clay courts.  What we call ‘hard’ now was called ‘asphalt’ then.

[8] “Covered court” is what we now call ‘indoor.’

[9] “open” to foreigners, not professionals