Federer, Nadal, Djokovic - Cumulative Titles by Age

[El Dude]

Another little investigation. I was listening to the current Heavy Topspin podcast in which they discussed Roger's 100th title and Novak's and Rafa's chances of reaching that number; they briefly touched upon where Roger was at Novak's (31-32) and Rafa's (32-33) ages, and basically compared the two younger players favorably to Roger's trajectory.

This got me curious about where the three were at in terms of cumulative titles. So here are a couple charts:

First, here is their yearly title count by year-ending age. Note that the oldest age for each is the current year, thus the low title total.

What I find interesting is how different the three are. Roger had that massive peak during his age 23-25 years (2004-06) in which he won 34 titles, and has been less impressive otherwise. Rafa had those two big years, age 19 and 27, quite far part (although his age 22 and 24 years are generally considered better than age 19). Djokovic peaked a bit later than Roger, age 24-29...in terms of title counts.

And now to the heart of the matter:

What is interesting here is how their trajectories were quite different to start, but then ended up meeting at age 29. Rafa started much quicker, although Roger caught up by age 25 (his great 2006), and then the two were neck and neck. Novak started quicker than Roger but far slower than Rafa, and fell behind both until finally catching up at age 29 (2016).

So the key takeaway is that all had different trajectories, but all three converged in their age 29 season: 2010 for Roger, 2015 for Rafa, 2016 for Novak. They've stayed close since, but it remains to be seen whether Rafa and Novak keep pace with Roger or not.

 

[mrzz]

Nadal's trajectory is incredibly linear, but I suspect clay has a lot to do with that, given his grip on those titles. I think his path will get much more wild if you discount clay.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For some reason, I kind of have a feeling that Roger's total titles will be more difficult to surpass by Ralph or Novak than his GS count.

 

[Federberg]

Somehow it would be fitting if all 3 end up with more than 100 titles. Obviously I want Roger to end up with more. But damn... they all deserve it. It all depends on the young guys, do they improve enough to stop Rafa and Novak in time? Who knows!

 

[nehmeth]

For some reason, I kind of have a feeling that Roger's total titles will be more difficult to surpass by Ralph or Novak than his GS count.

Connors retired at 44 with 109 titles. Methinks Fed will break that record. Curious as to why you think passing his overall title count will be more difficult for Nadal and Djokovic than his GS titles.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Connors retired at 44 with 109 titles. Methinks Fed will break that record. Curious as to why you think passing his overall title count will be more difficult for Nadal and Djokovic than his GS titles.

I agree that Roger will pass Connors.

As to why Novak or Rafa won't pass Roger is due to a general theory that has been propounded many times (and of course the theory cannot be verified at this time). The notion is that due to their basic style of the game, once they fall below the elite level due to aging physique, their collapse will be very fast.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal's trajectory is incredibly linear, but I suspect clay has a lot to do with that, given his grip on those titles. I think his path will get much more wild if you discount clay.

You, of all people. I wish we'd start assessing a fine for posters who type "discount clay." What would it look like if we discount HC or grass or indoor HC? Was the notion of taking out clay from stats even a thing before Nadal?

 

[Moxie]

I agree that Roger will pass Connors.

As to why Novak or Rafa won't pass Roger is due to a general theory that has been propounded many times (and of course the theory cannot be verified at this time). The notion is that due to their basic style of the game, once they fall below the elite level due to aging physique, their collapse will be very fast.

I think Roger has a good chance to pass Connors, because, in part, he might target it. He is within touching distance, even though 10 titles is still at lot at this age. How long did it take him to get the #100? As to Nadal and Djokovic, I agree with you. Not necessarily because they'll fall precipitately as they age, but more because of the incoming competition, and because I don't think they'll target it, as Roger might, at this end stage. Nadal has 80 titles, Djokovic 73. That's a long way to 100, much less 110+, at 32 and 31, respectively. (This is where I don't totally discount your notion that playing style comes into it, in terms of how long they play.) I could be wrong about Djokovic this year, but I think their years of winning 11 titles are behind them. 7 is a lot. 5 is not unheard of. Given age, road-wear and encroaching competition, I don't think either will pass Roger in # of titles, whether or not Roger finally passes Connors.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger clearly stated in Dubai (after winning) that he is not targeting to surpass Connors. He basically said he is happy that he is healthy and still playing. He also went ahead and said explicitly, there is no need to break every record around. Having said all that it may just be a diplomatic talk and he might be targeting it (as he had said earlier this year that he is playing for titles now and not for rankings).

 

[Moxie]

Roger clearly stated in Dubai (after winning) that he is not targeting to surpass Connors. He basically said he is happy that he is healthy and still playing. He also went ahead and said explicitly, there is no need to break every record around. Having said all that it may just be a diplomatic talk and he might be targeting it (as he had said earlier this year that he is playing for titles now and not for rankings).

It's absolutely the right thing to say, and the right attitude, as he's still surely targeting Slams. However, he made it clear that he's still competitive about records when he went for #1 again last year ("oldest.") If he's still playing and enjoying himself, even if Slams are eluding him, he might play some smaller ones to get the record over Jimmy. Part of the farewell tour. But this is why I don't see Nadal or Djokovic passing him. They won't try, nor should they target it. And when they're done winning Slams, they probably won't be monkeying around in smaller tournaments, because the record will be too far to catch, if you see what I'm saying. I wouldn't think ill of Roger if he went for the odd 250 when he's close. I think the other 2 will be too far off and won't bother.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's absolutely the right thing to say, and the right attitude, as he's still surely targeting Slams. However, he made it clear that he's still competitive about records when he went for #1 again last year ("oldest.") If he's still playing and enjoying himself, even if Slams are eluding him, he might play some smaller ones to get the record over Jimmy. Part of the farewell tour. But this is why I don't see Nadal or Djokovic passing him. They won't try, nor should they target it. And when they're done winning Slams, they probably won't be monkeying around in smaller tournaments, because the record will be too far to catch, if you see what I'm saying. I wouldn't think ill of Roger if he went for the odd 250 when he's close. I think the other 2 will be too far off and won't bother.

If Roger wanted to reach #100 quickly he could have easily entered in any one of various 250s since the time he secured #99. Roger is not going to alter the schedule just for these silly things.

 

[Moxie]

If Roger wanted to reach #100 quickly he could have easily entered in any one of various 250s since the time he secured #99. Roger is not going to alter the schedule just for these silly things.

I hope you didn't misunderstand my point. I'm only saying he can peg the record when the important things are done, if he cares to. He's very close.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

federer won 99th in october..basel500. he won 4 titles in 2018.

alot of folk not big fans of jimmys 109, won alot of 8/16 man draws in mid 70s ?..on that tour his manager set up?? o'riordon?.

 

[mrzz]

You, of all people. I wish we'd start assessing a fine for posters who type "discount clay." What would it look like if we discount HC or grass or indoor HC? Was the notion of taking out clay from stats even a thing before Nadal?

I don't want to "discount" clay to diminish Nadal's accomplishments, just to analyze them. But ok, surely in two short lines I would never be able to let my point clear.

If you look at those lines on the cumulative graph, Nadal's line is clearly to most "well behaved" one (you can see that in the first one too, even if it is not that clear, but if someone would calculate the standard deviation from that, Nadal's would be the smaller). In other words, he's got the more constant path. This gives an idea of much more "regular" (in the sense that his results do not vary that much) player than the other two.

All I am saying is that all this regularity is driven by clay. His results on other surfaces vary much more either because he simply got better on them, and also because he had a few years that stand out from his own average (2008, 2013). Probably those two things would be quite clear in this "clayless" scenario.

Yes, this would be true to anyone, that is, take out a player's best surface, and what is left is more, say, oscillatory. This will happen to a lesser extent to Federer if you take out grass (mainly because there are fewer grass tournaments), and to Djokovic if we could take out slow hards (hard thing to do, but still).

And, of all people, I am surely the last one who would want to discount clay. Don't say it out loud, but it is my favorite surface.

 

[atttomole]

For Djokovic and Nadal, health will determine how their trajectories go. It looks like they could play into their late 30’s like Roger, due advancements in medicine. The younger generations have not been good enough to challenge them.

 

[Moxie]

I don't want to "discount" clay to diminish Nadal's accomplishments, just to analyze them. But ok, surely in two short lines I would never be able to let my point clear.

If you look at those lines on the cumulative graph, Nadal's line is clearly to most "well behaved" one (you can see that in the first one too, even if it is not that clear, but if someone would calculate the standard deviation from that, Nadal's would be the smaller). In other words, he's got the more constant path. This gives an idea of much more "regular" (in the sense that his results do not vary that much) player than the other two.

All I am saying is that all this regularity is driven by clay. His results on other surfaces vary much more either because he simply got better on them, and also because he had a few years that stand out from his own average (2008, 2013). Probably those two things would be quite clear in this "clayless" scenario.

Yes, this would be true to anyone, that is, take out a player's best surface, and what is left is more, say, oscillatory. This will happen to a lesser extent to Federer if you take out grass (mainly because there are fewer grass tournaments), and to Djokovic if we could take out slow hards (hard thing to do, but still).

And, of all people, I am surely the last one who would want to discount clay. Don't say it out loud, but it is my favorite surface.

I sort of just put in that post as a toss-off complaint. I know you're not one that talks about discounting clay, excluding it from discussions, (such as of the dreaded H2H,) due to any "agenda," but still you went there. I suppose you meant to examine Nadal alone, not as a comparison to the others, to see how he's performed on surfaces other than clay, year to year? Could be interesting. If you did that with the others, then I would say take grass and indoor HCs out for Federer. And why only slow HC for Djokovic? Say we made an exercise of eliminating all tournaments that each has won more than, say, 3 times. It simply becomes a different exercise. I don't mean to poke at you, in particular, but I would say you fell a bit into the easy convention of wondering what Nadal's results look like, in this case on a graph, excluding clay. No one ever asks to look at Roger's or Nole's results in an exclusionary context. Nadal's first final in a MS1000 was on HC, and he won a MS1000 on HC in that same year, 2005, when he was 19, beating Agassi. Just because he's the clay GOAT, I don't think he or clay deserves this much ghettoization. I suppose we've never had such a great champion that is both clay great and overall great, but as I asked above, why does everyone think it's OK to keep asking that? It's beside the point that you love clay, but I appreciate the "confession." Since you're a fan of a rant, that's mine. Rant over. Thanks to all for the indulgence.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I haven't looked but you probably won't find a player in the open era whose cumulative title count in singles still rises past age 35, like Roger's. Connors won most of his titles before or on 1984, when he was 32 or younger, and only 4 extra titles in 1988-89.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics#Singles_titles:_(109)

 

[El Dude]

Most Open Era titles age...

40 and older:
6 Ken Rosewall
5 Pancho Gonzales

No one else has won a title after turning 40, even 38...

38 and older:
12 Ken Rosewall
5 Pancho Gonzales

35 and older:
29 Ken Rosewall
15 Rod Laver
12 Roger Federer
5 Pancho Gonzales
4 Jimmy Connors
3 Ivo Karlovic
2 Jaime Fillol, Victor Estrella Burgos, Tom Okker, Arthur Ashe, Tommy Haas
1 Marty Riessen, Istvan Gulyas, Cliff Drysdale, Roy Emerson, Feliciano Lopez, Nikola Pilic, Andre Agassi, Fabrice Santoro, David Ferrer, Colin Dibley, Francois Jauffret, Fred Stolle

Ken Rosewall is pretty amazing - he has more titles at age 35 and older than #2 and #3, Laver and Federer, combined.

Roger turns 38 in August, so presumably will join Rosewall and Gonzales as the only players with titles after turning 38 in the Open Era. Note that Gonzales turned 40 years old in 1968, the first year of the Open Era, so would have likely had many more titles.

Suffice it to say, Roger Federer is the best old player since Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales.