As the US Open approaches, I thought I would try to look at Federer’s place in the all-time list, and <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/5167450.stm”>came across this article</a> from July where John Newcombe, the Australian tennis “legend”, works out why Federer CAN’T be considered a great.<br />
<br />
His theory stems from the fact that Federer “has not been able to win the French Open and Nadal has not only been beating him on clay, he’s beaten him and matched him on hard court. So if you’re going to put Federer there, you’ve got to put Nadal there.”<br />
<br />
Ok, I get the idea that Nadal has a good record against Federer, but a quick look at the grand slam list shows that Roger is on the up. He’s won 8 (so far), which pits him with Agassi, Connors and Lendl. Not bad – he’s only 24.<br />
<br />
<table><tr><td><b>Rank</b></td><td><b>Player</b></td><td><b>Australia</b></td><td><b>France</b></td><td><b>Wimbledon</b></td><td><b>US</b></td><td><b>Total</b></td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>1</td><td>Pete Sampras (USA) </td><td>2</td><td>- </td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>14</td></tr> <tr><td>2</td><td>Roy Emerson (AUS) </td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>12</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>3</td><td>Bj�rn Borg (SWE) </td><td>- </td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>- </td><td>11</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Rod Laver (AUS) </td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>11</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td>5</td><td>William Tilden (USA) </td><td>- </td><td>- </td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>10</td></tr> <tr><td>6</td><td>Andre Agassi (USA) </td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td></td><td>Jimmy Connors (USA) </td><td>1</td><td>- </td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td><b>Roger Federer</b> (SUI) </td><td>2</td><td>- </td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td></td><td>Ivan Lendl (CZE/USA) </td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>- </td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Fred Perry (GBR) </td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr> <tr bgcolor=”#DEDEDE”><td></td><td>Ken Rosewall (AUS) </td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>- </td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
<br />
So who does Newcombe really rate? Not Sampras it seems, despite his unsurpassed record of 14 slams and 6 years in a row as year-end number one.<br />
<br />
“Pete Sampras cannot go down in that category because the best he ever did at the French Open in 11 tries was one semi-final,” said Newcombe.<br />
<br />
“So there’s no way he can be categorised as one of the best three or four of all time.” <br />
<br />
Well, who does that leave? The five who have won the “career slam” are:<br />
Don Budge, Fred Perry, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson and Andre Agassi.<br />
<br />
Now, if we apply the Newcombe theory, Agassi must be in the top five. But… he had a <a href=”http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=agassi&player2=sampras”>losing record against Sampras</a>: 14-20. This isn’t good at all. Accoring to Newcombe, If you can’t beat your big rival you’re not the best. Agassi is out.<br />
<br />
What about Emerson and Laver? Well, their slam record is very close with Emerson on 12 and Laver on 11, but we all know that Emerson’s tally is inflated by the fact that all his rivals turned pro. <a href=”http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Emerson%2C+Roy&player2=Laver%2C+Rod&playernum2=L058″>The head to head says it all</a>. Laver wins 14-1.<br />
<br />
What about Budge and Perry? Tennis records get a bit hazy pre-1968, so it’s hard to assess their rivalry. If we take the matches that really count, the slam finals, can we learn anything there? Budge’s slam finals record was played 7, won 6. Perry was played 10, won 8. Hard to separate them on this measure. However, in their only slam final meeting, the 1936 U.S. Championships, Perry won 2-6 6-2 8-6 1-6 10-8. Perry edges it – just.<br />
<br />
So Newcombe’s theory leaves Laver and Perry as the top players of all time. And being John Newcombe, we can discount Perry as a pom, leaving a good old Aussie as the best ever. A one-eyed, statistically inept view, but there you go.
Leave a Reply