Billion Dollar Tennis Baby

There are few tennis tournaments like the U.S. Open.  It is a big tennis carnival that draws more fans and contributes more to the New York City economy in it’s 2 weeks of activity than the Yankees or Mets in the same time period.  When you look at the ecosystem of the US Open in terms of revenue generated by the tournament, revenue generated by New York City businesses and other multipliers you have a billion dollar tennis extravaganza.  The US Open  is wholly owned by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and 50% of that revenue, more than $100 million, shows up as bottom line profit for the USTA.  So how big is the US Open nut and how do you back into the numbers that make tennis’ leading extravaganza so extravagant?

Our number for the US Open total revenue plus economic multipliers is somewhere around $1.4 billion.  Here is our  quick breakdown of US Open revenue as provided by massaging numbers presented by the USTA and the city of New York as well as the “multiplier” effect the Open has on its sponsors and players.

 

 

Deep Diving on the USTA Revenue Number for the US Open.

For the past several years the USTA has reported revenue of more than $200 million from the US Open.  We backed into these numbers by using several of the USTAs own numbers, published sources of information and filled in numbers based on guesstimates when needed.  Here is our breakdown of the $210 million in revenue shown in the chart below.

US Open revenue is anchored by ticket sales to more than 720,000 fans at an average estimated cost of $120 for a total amount of $85 million.  With tickets sales alone, the USTA  almost breaks even on expenses for the event as the USTA states that it has more than 50% profitability from its annual revenue of $210 million.  Likewise, US Open sponsorships garner more than $60 million annually from heavyweight advertisers like IBM, JP Morgan Chase and American Express, all trying to reach the elite US Open tennis fan where attendees median income is $150,000 and the majority are women.

Another $60 million of revenue comes from television.  Tennis tv viewership has plummeted since their 1981 high when 8 million people or more than 4% of Americans watched John McEnroe vs. Bjorn Borg.  Nevertheless advertisers want to reach the high-earning, remaining 2 million people, less than 1% of Americans, who still watch tennis on network tv.  Tennis still earns roughly $24million from CBS for prime time and another $23 million from ESPN and the Tennis channel.  Additional incentives bump the gross up as well as web and other broadcast/rebroadcast rights.

To fill the gap we publish a miscellaneous licensing and sponsorship fees for the grounds as well as website advertising and other cross-promotional numbers which get us to the $210 million mark.   The USTA should feel free to publish the real numbers though we feel comfortable with the numbers below and think it is more important to be thematically and directionally correct than to have 100% accurate numbers i.e. these are estimates.

Category	USTA Revenue (Millions)
Ticket Sale	$   86
TV Network CBS	$   24
ESPN	$   23
Vendor Sales Licensing	$     7
TV Advertising (partial)	$     5
TV Cable Advertising (partial)	$     5
Tournament Sponsorship	$   60
Miscellaneous Suite Sponsorship	???
Total	$  210

The US Open Multiplier Effect.

The US Open is the principal money-maker for the New York based USTA providing  more than 80% of its revenue for the year.  Also, New York City, surrounding areas and localities where fans emanate from experience a significant bump to their business as part of a US Open multiplier effect.  Past estimates from a 15 year old study are that the US Open generates more than $420 million in revenue for New York.  More recent commentary says that the numbers have not changed radically, however in a day of $10 burgers and $5 round trip subway rides, the economic impact of the US Open is grossly underestimated.

We back into the numbers two ways.  First we try the high level approach of adjusting for inflation.  Using Consumer Price Index (CPI) rates as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics we take the 2010 CPI  of 2.18 and divide it by the 1995 CPI of 1.52.  This creates a multiplier of 1.43 which we use against the $420 million figure.  When accounting for inflation, the real revenue multiplier to New York City and surrounding areas is close to $600 million in 2010 dollars.

Second, we use a method of estimating economic multipliers by category.  This approach is tricky business as Victor A. Matheson of Holy Cross University argues against the US Open’s multiplier saying they do not consider substitution, i.e. people who spend $100 at the US Open would spend the same amount at Jones Beach if it wasn’t happening that weekend.  Matheson argues there is no way  the US Open accounts for 3- 5% of all tourism dollars spent in New York City.

This article does not argue the US Open’s direct impact on the Tri-State economy as much as the combined direct and indirect impact.  So for example, is the US Open directly responsible for any and all Broadway sales or sight-seeing, cab usage or rental car bump in traffic over Labor day’s weekend and surrounding two weeks when most New Yorkers are out of town.  The answer is NO.  However, does the US Open influence families were the husband may want to go watch a match and his wife might want to do sight-seeing while the teenage kids go to see Spiderman on Broadway?  Or in other cases where a family may come in for one day of tennis and another day of sightseeing, etc?  CERTAINLY!

In addition, there is also the issue of re-purposed dollars which we address qualitatively.  For example if New York resident Jane Doe usually takes the subway on Saturdays to the farmer’s market in Manhattan but instead takes it to the US Open on Saturday of Labor Day weekend she is spending money she would have already spent on the subway, but in this case, it is being spent on the Open.

Also, we assume the average US Open tournament-goer is in the highest income bracket where spending $1,000 on a 2 day excursion to New York is not excessive.  The US Open has reported that its median attendee has income greater than $150,000 a year.

So where does the $600 million come from or go?  Here are our guesstimates based on an economic modeling approach rather than a bottom-up rollup of expenses that only New York City and other areas can provide.  Again, our estimates are on a total economic multiplier rather than just that for New York City and the surrounding tri-state area.  We do not consider global advertising impact from those who watch the US Open on television worldwide though that also bolsters the numbers.

Ticket Resales and On-Site Revenue:

US Open on-site revenue is similar to the movies as customers are expected to spend as much during the day on food, clothing and memorabilia as they do on tickets to enter.  Assuming total ticket revenue of $85 million from 720,000 customers we can see the same customers spending money on $10 hamburgers, multiple $5 beverages, $15 health food plates, $30-50 tennis sports wear, $25 US Open tournament brochures and other types of items and memorabilia.

Other web sites also discuss the availability of tickets that are resold on the US Open site, Stub Hub or other sites.  We estimate roughly 20% of all US Open tickets are resold at an increment on average equal to the original ticket price.  Forbes magazine reports that more than 100,000 US Open tickets sold in 2010 on the secondary i.e. scalped, market with average prices of tickets by round incrementing roughly $50 per round with the finals selling at a price of $350 per ticket.  These prices were quoted 2 weeks before the final which probably saw the price increase with a final between Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.  In the past, showdowns between Sampras and Agassi have fetched more than $1,000 on the secondary market a day before the match.  Although our final estimate for resale is $17 million in total, if we calculated using an average resale using the Forbes estimate of $50 per round, the actual number is higher.

Accommodations and Transportation

The largest multiplier expense and the largest expense for the US Open is the Accommodations and Transportation multiplier.  Half of all attendees come from outside the tri-state area.  We expect attendees to spend the same amount on hotel and accommodations as they spend net on the tournament.  So if the average attendee spends $125 on a ticket and $125 on food and memorabilia, then we expect them to spend roughly $250 on accommodations per night.

Other significant expenses are the plane fare for 180,000, around $450 (remember for every penny-saver flight there is a high net worth flying a higher class travel) or driving expense.  Driving expense for the average US Open ticket-goer who drives 600 miles to the event is roughly $300 for 5 tanks of gas, plus food and beverage along the way, tolls and parking or somewhere around $450.  There is also transportation to and from the airport on average about $120 as taxi fares including tolls and tip exceed more than $50 from all locales and from Newark Airport can go as high as $80 one way.

Besides the New York City cost of airport transportation, we also include the cost of airport transportation to and from the 180,000 tourists local airports at about $100 as well when including overnight car parking or cab fare to the airport plus other expenditures including memorabilia, food and drink.  About 20% of all attendees park at the US Open at a cost of $20 plus more than $10 of tolls and roughly $10 of gasoline round trip.  Likewise many attendees rent cars who stay on NYC outskirts to get cheaper hotel accommodations or for concurrent business trips, another 2-day $100 expense.  (We don’t break that out from the general hotel fee).  About 80% of attendees take the subway or other public transportation to the US Open with some incremental cost.

Note:  we do not consider the impact of luxury US Open tours sponsored by the likes of American Express which include box seats and meet the player events, but that surely would raise the number.

Other New York Activities

We expect that half the people who travel to the US Open (180,000) spends on average an extra day enjoying NYC and its cultural activites.  We expect that person to spend roughly the same on their second day as they do at their day at the Open.  Whether seeing a Broadway show, average ticket price $100 and then having dinner, average price $50-75 with commensurate cab fares, taxes and tips, we have no problem estimating another $250 spent on day 2 of a trip to NYC.

Endorsements and Direct Sales

Beyond the normal multipliers that we consider of NYC expense and transportation expense we also consider direct sales channels for US Open tickets and special vendor considerations.  We estimate that 20% of all purchasers are USTA members who are primarily members to get access to early sales of US Open tickets.   At $75 for an average family membership the USTA may make as much as $10 million from memberships sold for US Open early access.  Likewise we estimate 20% of all purchasers are American Express users for the same reason.  With varying expense, we assume an average American Express card annual expense of $150.

Also, we look at player endorsements and other economics.  Maria Sharapova makes $25 million a year in endorsements.  Venus and Serena Williams, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal make in excess of $10 million in endorsements.  Other players have multi-million dollar endorsement deals.  We add up all the estimated cumulative tennis endorsement money and divide it by the number of grand slams (4) and come up with an estimate of economic endorsement value to players of $50 million.  Many may disagree with this number and the reliance on grand slam credibility but even Anna Kournikova who had a $50 million endorsement agreement with Adidas won a grand slam championship in doubles with Martina Hingis.

Besides endorsement money, there are other economics in play.  Martina Navratilova and Rod Laver have recently been seen at the US Open signing autographs.  A Martina Navratilova autographed tennis ball sells on the secondary markets for $195, a Rod Laver tennis ball – $145.  Navratilova and Laver also have autobiographies they sell.  Vendors may generate $85 million in revenue, but they also pay some factor of that money in salary to their service and sales people who then spend it on other things.  Likewise for secondary sales agents, etc.

Intangible Economics

Lastly we have intangible economics of the US Open.  As we learned from hedge fund billionaire’s, Raj Rajnataram’s insider trading trial, the US Open is a magnet for business deal-making.   In one 3 day weekend, Raj took a vacation and made $30 million.  At the US Open, he met with Arun Sarin the former CEO of Vodafone to discuss Sarin’s launch of a Telecom hedge fund.  George Soros is known to be a player as is Bill Ackman, all hedge fund billionaires.  Many deals and meetings like this are done over the two weeks of the US Open and there is some unquantified economic impact which is of great value to New York City and probably only New York.

US Open Multiplier Effect
New York and Other Area	US Open Economic Multiplier (in Millions)
Estimated from Study ($420 million * CPI)	$   602
Vendor Sales	$     86
Ticket re-sale	$        17
Ticket Resales and On-Site Sales SubTotal	$   103
Hotel Rooms (1 day)	$    43
Hotel Rooms (2 day)	$    86
Airline	$    81
Car (transport and parking)	$    81
Airport Transportation (NYC)	$    25
Airport Transportation (non-NYC)	$    18
Parking (Parking + Tolls)	$      4
Transportation Taxi	$    17
Transportation (Subway / Bus)	$       2
Accomodations and Transportation	$ 359
Other New York Activities	$   54
Player Endorsements	$   50
American Express Memberships	$   23
USTA Memberships	$     11
Endorsements and Direct Sales	$   84
Deal-making	????
New York and Other Area Subtotal	$ 601

Sponsor Multiplier

The Sponsor Multiplier is the amount of revenue sponsors expect to make from advertising at the US Open or on television.  The total sponsorship dollars spent at the US Open exceeds $60 million.  Likewise, television revenue is roughly $60 million (and we expect television advertising rates to be far higher).  Minimally we expect the revenue generated by the sponsors and advertisers from the tourney is at least equal to the amount spent on sponsorship plus advertising.  So the net impact of advertising at the US Open would minimally have a net zero impact to the bottom line.  $120 million of sponsor and advertiser revenue gives an additional economic impact bringing the total economic value of the US Open to $920 million.

But the US Open’s core sponsors have long time relationships.   Relationships like these are developed due to profitability.  Since US Open sponsor products vary between high end and low end, we estimate the average profitability for US Open advertisers is 20%.  If sponsors are looking for a 1:1 return on their advertising dollar to bottom line profitability then we would expect the top line revenue would be 5 times profitability i.e. one fifth bottom line times five times revenue is 1:1.  So if sponsors and advertisers pay $120 million a year for the US Open, we expect their revenue generated to be $600 million driven by the tournament or a total US Open economic value of $1.4 billion.

A real world example benefits.  Let’s say all US Open ticket holders are American Express holders and spend $1,000 a year (or while on their trip to NYC) due to advertising and sponsorship at the US Open.  The Amex fees on the $1,000 is $30 and the annual fee for the Amex card is $150.  $180 out of $1,000 is about a 20% profit margin.  700,000 ticket holders spending $1,000 each on Amex due to US Open advertising is $700 million of economic value.

The reality, according to American Express financial statements, is that Amex’ corporate cardholders spend on average card a whopping $11,213 annually or almost $1,000 a month.  So the multiplier may be significantly greater.   Many of the US Open sponsors, like Amex, are headquartered in the NYC area as is the USTA.

Summary

The US Open is a powerful economic force for its stakeholders, the USTA, New York City and surrounding areas, sponsors and advertisers.   Though existing estimates hold the total US Open economic value at around $620 million for the USTA and the New York City tri-state area, when reviewed on a holistic basis and adjusted for inflation the total economic value of the US Open is closer to $1.4 billion when considering all locales and the breadth of advertising reach.

Probably the economics of Wimbledon and the other slams  are similar to the US Open in many ways which allows for the prize money they offer.

Closing Thought

Though the US Open provides substantial economic benefits to all involved it is an underperformer in the world of sports events.  If US tennis had the same crowds as in the 1980s or had maintained the same market share, the economic potential for the US Open would be 2-3 times the existing economic impact.  Next we discuss ways to improve the US Open and how the USTA’s stewardship of tennis succeeds and fails the sport.

Wimpledon Redux 2011 – The End of the Short Game Part 2

Today’s version of Wimbledon, “Wimpledon” or “Wimpy” is a side to side sport with little movement up or down towards the net.  In basketball we have the 3 pointer, the slam dunk and the mid range jumper.  In football the short yardage run, the trap play, mid-range passing games and the long bomb.  In baseball the singles hitter, hit and run plays, suicide squeezes and the long ball.  In tennis, we have side to side movement and not much else.

Changing the Rules to Pump up Tennis has Failed!

As stale tennis goes, “Wimpy” is heads above anyone else.  Not certain what it wanted to be, in 2001 after a 5 set final between Goran Ivanisevic and Patrick Rafter, featuring 40 aces or about 1 every two games.  (You can re-watch that match here) The powers that be feared that the power service game would take over the last major fast surface tournament on the tour.   The tourney directors killed what made Wimbledon unique and turned it into just another tourney.  First they accepted the 32 seed draw approach which reduced upsets of the top seeds then they slowed down the surface in an effort to reduce aces and the power game.  As Greg Garber of ESPN explained, “Once, grass was the fastest surface in tennis. But after Goran Ivanisevic and Patrick Rafter turned the 2001 final into an ace-fest, Wimbledon slowed things down. The original mix was 70 percent rye grass and 30 percent creeping red fescue, but now it is 100 percent rye. Because rye sits up higher than fescue, the greater friction slows the ball down. Plus, players say, the balls are bigger today than they’ve ever been. The result is a higher bounce than before”  The consequences were immediate.  Wimpledon’s ratings plummeted by a million viewers and has not reached the heights of the 2001 finals since as documented by Nielsen.

This year you wear red and I’ll wear blue. 

 Next year I’ll wear red and you wear blue. 

Wimpy’s final has featured the first seed against the second seed in seven of the last eight years.   In several cases one year’s final is replayed the next.  Americans, faced with the same match they saw the year before with the same predictable result, turned off their televisions.  Ratings have sunk for Wimpy from an all time high of more than 8 million people watching the Bjorn Borg vs John McEnroe match in 1981 to less than 2 million people watching last year’s Rafael Nadal win.  Percentage wise, more than 4 percent of Americans watched pro tennis in 1980 versue less than 1% today.  One third the variety and more predictability equals less than one third the fans.  Tennis is in the dumpster, in the ESPN universe it is behind high school sports and soccer but narrowly maintains its advantage over mixed martial arts and poker.   ESPN has just acquired the rights for all US broadcasts of Wimpy for $40 million annually, or about  a 30% discount from the US Open.

They Might be Giants

Besides the predictability factor the game has suffered the unintended advent of giants which makes it far less accessible to the average fan.  As you remember, the court was changed to slow the ball down and stop giant tennis players hurling aces at each other.  However, slowing the court down assisted the giants as the ball popped up and they no longer had to bend down to hit balls.   In the 30 years before the change in surfaces, a dozen players over 6’4” reached the last 16 at Wimbledon (Philippoussis, Safin, Stich, Todd Martin,Rosset,  Rusedski and Krajicek), all were serve and volleyers.  Since the rules changed 10 years ago, a dozen people over 6’4” (Karlovic, Safin, Popp, Del Potro, Rusedski, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Querrey, Soderling, Ancic, Cilic, Berdych, etc) have more frequently reached the round of 16.  Outside of Karlovic, none of the new players are true serve and volleyers.

The “Isner-angle”

Slowing down the surface has had almost no effect on the number of aces as giant tennis players don’t need velocity to hit the ace.  Instead they hit angle serves as Jon Isner displayed when he hit 113 aces in 100 service games in last years record-setting Wimpy match for duration against Nicholas Mahut .   Mahut hit 103 aces.  There were a total of 216 aces in a total of 188 games or more than an ace a game.  So much for effectiveness in stopping the big serve.

We call the new service angle , the “Isner-angle” for a serve that could not be hit consistently in tennis in the past without the advent of the new tennis giants and new racquet technology.  The serve lands on the sideline but about 1 to 2 feet before the service line.  It is unreturnable since a player would have to run 5-6 steps to catch a ball going on average 120 mph.  If a player moves over to get the ”Isner-angle”, then Isner types can easily serve the ball down the middle.  Watch this video of Isner’s serve.  After his jump, he is well inside the baseline hitting the ball about 2 feet in front of it from a fully extended height between 10-11 feet.

Since there is no variety or chance of upset in the game, and since 7 of the last 8 finals have been between the first and second seed, a tennis viewer need ask two questions.  Who is playing?  Didn’t I see that last year?  In it’s utter predictability, American tennis viewership is near dead.

Tennis Viewership is On Life Support, Change the Rules

Like a 12 steps program, Wimpledon must admit its failure and fix the surface and big server problem to restore the game to it’s prior grandeur.  Look at other pro sports.  When Wilt Chamberlain was too big for basketball they changed the rules specifically for him, they widened the lane and initiated the 3 second rule.  In baseball when too many home runs were being hit, they raised the pitcher’s mound.

In this case it is easy to restore 3 surfaces of varying speed and eliminate the “Isner-angle”.  Though Andy Roddick has the fastest serve in tennis, he has proven beatable at the majors due to his lack of variety in the serve.  Likewise he gives away where his serve is going well in advance with a non-disguised lean in one direction or the other.  So the issue is the big guys and in particular, the “Isner-angle”.  The existing solution to the “Isner-angle” doesn’t work.  Isner and the other giants on the tour continue to hit the angle serve.

The rules change have not eliminated the ace for the small percent of men who hit angles, but it has slowed down the surface for 100% of the people who play at Wimpy as well as the US Open.  This has killed the short and mid tennis game, as baseliners take out anyone who dares to rush the net as approach shots bounce higher and slower than ever.  The big serve has not turned out to be the threat perceived by pro tennis management, but the “Isner-angle” has brought in an era of giant angle servers who win on every surface as the ball bounces up so they can take massive swings at it.  Also a legion of long range only tennis players have arisen, few different from the other in style of play but clogging the game so no new names can move in to popularize the sport.  As of this writing only one teenager is in the ATP top 100 rankings.

Our solution is to make “Isner-angle” serves illegal by drawing a box or line that eliminates the angle.   Who would be impacted?  Only a handful of giant players who are on the tour purely because of their ability to hit angle serves and have a foot and half serving advantage when including arm length over a 6 foot tall opponent.  Add another 1 to 2 feet advantage with a jump serve and giants have a 2-3 foot advantage on angles vs a 6 foot tall player.  Of those giants, only a small percent of their serves would be impacted while making the overall matches more competitive and adding to the diversity of the game.

But how do you call points where the lines are altered?  It is very easy to use shot spot to call these points and to have a wire into linesemen’s ears that tells them where the ball landed.  If the concern is over short balls, a second linesman can be setup directly across the umpire in a high chair to cover short balls on that side.

How does tennis manage this wrinkle in the game?  The same way the NBA or NFL does.  Every year they have a meeting and would decide what angle of  serves should be allowed.  It’s Wimpledon’s choice to revive tennis or not.

How Much Longer For Federer and Nadal – Tennis Champion Lifecycles

After a magnificent victory against Novak Djokovic, ending the match in the 4^th set when the tennis-viewing audience would bet against him in a 5 setter, Roger Federer was the story of this year’s Roland Garros despite losing in the final to Rafael Nadal.  Federer ended Djokovic’s 43 match winning streak.  Though we stuck a fork in Federer’s future slam chances last year when he lost in the US Open semifinals in a grinding 5-setter to Djokovic ( a match as pivotal to Djokovic as Lendl’s French Open victory against McEnroe was) we aren’t surprised to see Federer reach another slam final.  Federer beat a competitive field and had the most difficult draw in the tourney.

Not to be undone, the 25 year old Rafael Nadal won his 6^th French Open championship equaling the iconic Bjorn Borg.  Nadal and Borg are European twins with equally haughty won-loss records against the field of 82.6%.   Much of their damage was done on clay.  Nadal has eclipsed Borg with a career grand slam.  He is one of only 5 modern era champs to win slams on 3 surfaces including Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer and Mats Wilander.  What makes Nadal’s record more impressive than Federer’s is that he beat Federer on all surfaces in the finals of the slams they played.

Last year we gave our reasons for Federer’s fade:  (1) He needs too many winners against a player like Nadal to be competitive, (2) He can be outlasted in a tourney and by the semi-finals or finals is out of gas i.e French Open final set, (3) He doesn’t have a major-league fastball serve like Sampras that gets him many easy points, important as you get older.  LZ  Granderson from ESPN gave all the reasons Federer is not the greatest in agreement with our prior arguments but also described why Federer would lose to Nadal in Paris.  Greg Garber from ESPN has jumped on the bandwagon as well with Tim Joyce of Realclear Sports.  Is it much longer for Peter Bodo to acquiesce?

When we look at historical tennis data, we begin to conclude that Nadal is near the end of a remarkable story arc as well.

What has been Nadal’s story arc?  Like fellow all-time greats: Borg, Becker, Sampras and Wilander, his championship play manifested itself as a teen winning his first French Open at 19 after thoroughly dominating the South American clay tour.   Later he moved onto the finals of Wimbledon at 21 years of age.   Like every other left hander to reach the finals at a young age(McEnroe, Ivanisevic), he went on to win the championships and a total of 10 grand slams with this year’s French Open compiling an astounding 47-17 won-loss record in pro finals again rivaling Borg’s final percentage.

So the question remains how much gas do either have in the tank?  Is there data in tennis history that is relevant to answering the question?  If Federer is going strong near 30 years old, why shouldn’t Nadal?

Grand Slam Championships by Age – One Handed Backhand strokers.

So what does tennis look like for All Time Great (ATG) Slam champions after 25.  First let’s talk about the data.  We have compiled data since the Open era began for all tennis champions.   Eliminating the Rosewall and Laver data due to the “Dream Team” affect i.e. pros playing against amateurs we come up with a data set that shows a typical age range for people to win Grand Slams is from age 17 to 32 or about 15 years.  More dramatically we see that with the exception of Connors and Agassi, most two handed all time greats end their championship runs around 25 years of age.   We see the limit on one handed backhand hitters winning slams as 31 years of age.

Ultimately, the test of aging in the grand slams is whether you can win 7 matches and up to 35 sets in 14 days in terrible heat and other conditions against opponents 5-10 years younger than you.   Sampras had the benefit of easy points from one of the best first serves tennis has seen and certainly the best second serve far  faster than Federer’s with as much disguise.  Its not about the aces as much as the unreturnable serves or easy setups for putaway volleys.

Grand Slam Championships by Age – Two Handed Backhand strokers.

Data on Connors and Agassi winning post 25 should be taken with a grain of salt.  Connor’s 2 of 3 slams post 26 years of age benefitted from draws where Ivan Lendl eliminated McEnroe prior to a finals match with Connors as well as Borg’s sudden early retirement i.e would Connors win a tourney with semifinalists Borg, Lendl and McEnroe, instead of Bill Scanlon?  All of Connors victories over Lendl were before Lendl’s career-defining victory over McEnroe at the French Open.

Whose Head is Bigger?

  

Agassi’s admission of Performance Enhancing Drug(PED) usage in his autobiography casts a huge red flag over Agassi‘s  THREE slams at the age of 29. At 28 and 29 Lendl, Sampras and Federer, perhaps the fittest players ever to play tennis limped into the final years of their careers having problems lasting through the later rounds. With a career decline far worse than Roger Clemens as a Red Sox, Agassi  emerged with 10 pounds of additional muscle and endurance better than the fittest players in tennis history.  Things that make you go hmmm.

Regardless, Nadal is a different style player than Connors and Agassi as he has relied on defense far more in his career whereas Connors and Agassi dictated the pace of their play throughout their careers.   We have concluded that this is the last year or two of Nadal’s challenging for slam championships.   This is based on a few changes in the tennis environment and Nadal’s aging.

1.  Nadal is losing to Djokovic on all surfaces and Del Potro has returned to tennis which will threaten Nadal on harder / faster surfaces.
2. Nadal has shown that he is vulnerable on clay to flat ball hitters like Djokovic.  And now Tsonga on grass.
3. Nadal’s game more resembles Borg where he is opportunistic rather than Connors or Agassi where they forced play.  That is a harder game to maintain as you age per Borg and Wilander (Chang, Hewitt, etc).

Though Nadal is a different type of physical specimen than tennis has seen with Popeye musculature, a boxer’s gait and a peculiar penchant to adjust his shorts on every serve, we think this may only buy him an additional year of challenging for slams.  Do we favor Rafa to win Wimbledon this year?  Yes, but we won’t be surprised if he loses either.   The US Open will depend on the draw, where DelPo and Andy Murray land and if Djokovic can find his form again by the US Open.

Nadal Sticks a Fork in Federer’s Legend

Rises to Number 2 All Time – All Surface

After 15 days and 2 rain delays, Rafael Nadal has cemented his position as the greatest player of his era.  A traditional tennis champion, he emerged as a 19 year old wunderkind, dominating the clay court circuit going on to win the French Open 5 out of 6 years and accomplishing the longest clay court winning streak in men’s history.  With victories over Roger Federer on all 3 slam surfaces the last time they played and a 2 slam win streak over players not named Federer, Nadal entered the US Open finals awaiting the winner of the Roger Federer – Novak Djokovic semi-final.

Federer was the talk of the tournament and of the sumer circuit.  He hired Pete Sampras’ coach, Paul Annacone, and played with new abandon approaching the net at every chance.   For 4 sets and 9 games Federer executed the style Annacone had burnished in the forges of Pete Sampras’ instinctive game.  But then in the last 3 games, Federer changed styles, coming to net only once, reverting to his all-court / baseline style, ultimately losing the match.

The tennis world gasped and in a moment messages went out to the tennis player and coaching twitter world that roughly paraphrasing read like this: “Federer is not 100% committed to Annacone’s strategy”, “Federer can’t win tight or long matches anymore”.   Djokovic baked Federer for 3 hours, stuck a fork in him and said “He’s done”.

The number one ranked Nadal who had measured Federer like no other in the sport (14-7 head to head record) took his 80% finals winning record into the last match of the tournament and clocked Djokovic with devastating serves rivaling Federer’s speed while laying waste to Djokovic’s serve with 26 break point chances.   The fork was in Nadal’s hands this time.  Victorious, Nadal is the first person to win The French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open consecutively since Rod Laver and he has completed a career grand slam.

In his own humble style Nadal has gone about becoming the second greatest player of all time based on our championship quality ranking, SATERICCON.  The myopic tennis media and sponsor world focused primarily on Federer, humiliating Nadal with tennis vans painted with #2 ranked Federer’s image carrying him to matches and the exaggerated coverage of the Federer William Tell commercial.  Luke Jensen claimed Nadal had peaked years ago.  Tennis hasn’t treated Nadal as the number 1 player he was in 2008, coming back from an injury, but instead went right back to Federer as number 1 as if Nadal’s on-court ferocity were a hiccup in tennis history or as if Federer would have won the French Open and Wimbledon in 2009 had he faced Nadal at either tournament.

A man of Spanish lineage hasn’t been so disrespected by the tennis world since Jack Kramer paid Tony Trabert  $80,000 and Pancho Gonzalez $15,000 on the fledgling pro tour, despite Gonzalez’ year in, year out domination of the circuit and his 74-27 record vs. Trabert.  We have already discussed how Federer is the Larry Holmes of the tennis era with Sampras as it’s Muhammed Ali, on our blog.

Nadal has emerged onto the tennis  world like the Mike Tyson of the sport leaving devastation and ruin to all those who challenged him.  While Federer was the Gentleman Jim of the sport winning in an oh-so Swiss manner, Nadal has been all fire facing off against Federer with a boxer’s gait and bounce.   He is a man supremely confident in his athleticism, skills and mental fortitude.

So where does Nadal rank on the all time – all surface list?  Nadal has moved ahead of John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg within a handful of points behind Pete Sampras.  One more grand slam victory over a talented pool in Australia or any Grand Slam to come and he will pull ahead in Sampras on an all-court basis in terms of greatness (primarily due to his dominance over Federer).

And what of Federer?  Our model re-calculates greatness based on how other players you beat perform at future Slams.  Federer is now riding Nadal’s coattails in our rankings.  Federer moves ahead of Becker to 9^th on an all court basis and is within a point of surpassing Wilander based on his record at slams against Nadal.  On a fast court basis he moves within one point of Borg at 5^th place.  Any combination of Nadal winning a slam or Federer beating another slam winner in winning a slam will put Federer ahead of Borg but nowhere close to Stefan Edberg in 4^th place.

Cumulative All Surface Rank
via SATERICCON Analysis
1		Sampras
2		Nadal
3		Borg
4		McEnroe
5		Connors
9		Federer

What is the career trajectory of Nadal at this point?  As we mentioned before, Borg retired at 25 after winning his 6^th French Open and becoming convinced he could not beat McEnroe after 3 successive fast surface defeats at Slams.  Wilander didn’t win another slam after his tour de force over Lendl at the 1988 US Open.  We think Nadal will win one or two more slams but his period of dominance is likely to be over within the next two years.

The only two handers to consistently challenge for and win slams after 25 years of age were Connors and Agassi.  Neither were counter punchers or defensive players like Nadal has been for much of his career but instead they were aggressive baseliners, hugging the lines, looking to end points quickly.  To become more Agassi than Borg, Nadal needs to modify his game significantly (as he has done already) continuing to add punch to the serve, shortening points, being more opportunistic, and more importantly, shortening his strokes.  It is doubtful even with his weight training assisted body that he will continue to be able to defend,  get around his two handed backhand or have the massive rotation on his forehand as younger and more agile players come onto the court.

Slams at Age	23	24	25	post 25	Total Slams
Borg	2	2	0	0	11
Nadal	1	2	???	???	9
Connors	0	1	0	3	8
Agassi	0	1	1	5	8
Wilander	0	3	0	0	7

And what of Men’s tennis with it’s two major brands, Federer and Nadal sunsetting and not one teenager in the ATP top 100 ?  Will tennis wise up to its ways and go back to diversified surfaces as golf has different courses?  Will it correct the error it made by slowing down 100% of the tennis court when only 12.5% (the service box) may (or may not) have been in need of change?  What about the inflated record consequences of the 32 seed era which guarantees the higher your seed, the easier your path to a title?  No  one seems concerned about the convergence in results.  Records which occurred once every twenty years have now happened 3 times in 11 years with Agassi, Federer and Nadal recording career Grand Slams.  By sheer chance Agassi won the 2^nd least compelling career surface slam in the professional error.  Rule changes instituted by the ATP and other tennis authorities allowed Federer to win the weakest career slam . This is like 3 players hitting more than 65 home runs in 11 years, it just doesn’t happen without assistance (in this case administrative).  But in tennis, records are being broken with abandon, and there are 50 men over 25 years old in the top 100 who have no chance of ever winning a grand slam.  So what next new talent in the sport is a young fan to cheer?

Next, the economics of the US Open.

Ranking Federer by Surface All Time

ADDING THEM UP – MEASURING TENNIS GREATNESS

We’ve covered how Roger Federer stacks up vs the other all time greats on an all surface basis.  Our methodology, SHOTS , argues that for tennis greatness it is important to establish a consistent framework.   SHOTS relies on 2 metrics we created, SITDON, which looks at career winning percent between all time greats, Pantheonists, vs. each other and SATERICCON, a multi-dimensional snapshot of the competitiveness of open era slams ranking each one of them.  When we aggregate the results of those slams for each winner, it gives us a portrait of the all time most competitive slam champions, those players who were greatest when greatness was required.   So rather than hypothesize, we look at player records, value the toughest tournaments and add them up.  In the absence of an alternative methodology, we provide a robust framework to answer the question, who really is the Greatest Tennis Champion.

Breaking out Federer’s match record by surface, he places 7^th at Wimbledon in SATERICCON score vs. Sampras who comes in first with a 2.63 ranking.   Sampras may not have a 2.63 times greater chance of winning a Wimbledon championship than Federer (though we think it is somewhat indicative).  But he is more likely to win such a championship where players have won 2.63 times more slams than in Federer’s era.  (Remember that we have adjusted the SATERICCON rating to almost double Federer’s chances of winning a slam vs all time greats based on cumulative rather than average score. )  Some consider Sampras’ victory in 1993 to be the greatest Wimbledon.  Quarterfinalists included 6 slam winners (Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Stich, Courier and Sampras) and 2 multi-slam finalists (Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline).  However, Becker’s 1989 victory had 4 quarterfinalists that had won as many grand slams as the 1993 quarterfinalists combined (Edberg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander). Both are great feats and show the confluence of great all time players and styles in that era.

Again, SATERICCON Analysis shows the quality of a player by the field they defeat.  Not surprisingly the 4 toughest Wimbledon’s occurred within a 6 year time frame, between 1988 and 1993.

A similar story plays out at the US Open where Federer places 6^th to John McEnroe’s 2.93  cumulative rating.  Though some have argued that Sampras’ first US Open victory was the hardest with 5 Pantheon quarterfinalists (McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi and Becker), on a SATERICCON basis, Edberg’s 1991 victory had at least the same difficulty and his 1992 victory was superior with 5 Pantheon quarterfinalists (Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Lendl) plus Michael Chang, a slam winner. McEnroe had a similarly challenging 1980 victory with 4 Pantheonists (Borg, Connors, Lendl) and multi-slam winner, Johan Kriek.

Again, SATERICCON Analysis shows the quality of a player by the field they defeat.  Not surprisingly the toughest US Open’s are concentrated in two eras when great new talents emerged to challenge the established talents still in their prime.   2 of the top 5 occurred when McEnroe and Lendl came to challenge Borg and Connors and the remaining 3 occurred when Agassi, Sampras, Courier and Chang came to challenge Becker, Edberg and Lendl.

When taken on a weighted average across fast surfaces Federer ranks a cumulative 7^th on the SATERICCON scale.   Though Borg never won the US Open his cumulative Wimbledon score puts him ahead of Federer.  Likewise, Becker and Edberg who won less than half the titles of Federer, rank ahead of him when you consider that they played at  the nexus of all time great play.

When reviewing the fast surface data, we do a reality check of Federer’s play vs. comparable players who emulated the champions listed above him.  With a 10 year age difference there is insufficient match experience between Federer and Sampras to make a judgement, though Sampras frequently won tournaments at least twice as difficult as Federer and served 5-10 mph on average faster.  Federer lost to Nadal on fast courts many times.  Would he do any better against a left handed serve and volleying McEnroe.  Using Federer’s record against Agassi prior to Agassi turning 33, would Federer do well against a left handed, tough returning player like Connors?  Finally, Patrick Rafter dominated Federer before he retired, would Federer do better against Stefan Edberg who stylistically is a similar yet vastly superior player to Rafter?

When we started this discussion of all time greatness, it was pre-Wimbledon before Rafael Nadal won his 2^nd title in 4 consecutive finals.  Nadal fits the prototypical model of the Pantheon players as a teenage winner of a slam or a person who wins a slam within a year or two of turning pro such as Connors in 1974.  All of the top 5 Pantheon  players established themselves this way but not Federer who finishes 10th all time / all surface via SATERRICON .  Nadal is likely to move to #2 all time with his next slam win based on his SATERRICON rating while still maintaining the highest winning percent among Pantheon players via SITDON analysis.

We now look at Nadal’s French Open record.  Nadal’s French Open record is marked by his victories over Federer in 3 finals and 1 semifinal and Federer’s participation in each quarterfinal during Nadal’s era.  Borg’s era is marked by the absence of great clay court players and the retirement of the great Aussie generation early on and Lendl’s is hindered by his quest for a Wimbledon title where he skipped multiple French Opens.   In Lendl’s absence, Wilander and Andres Gomez (who Lendl handily beat 4 times at the French Open) won the title.

Again, SATERICCON analysis shows the quality of the players by the fields they played against.  Not surprisingly the toughest French Open’s involve the Lendl – Wilander rivalry which saw many great multi-surface matches and by Jim Courier’s two year dominance of the surface over Agassi.

To improve his legacy, Federer  will need to do more as the path of his career continues to mirror Sampras with fewer victories and even less victories against other grand slam winners.  A US Open, Wimbledon or Australian Open win against Nadal (the French seems out of the question) and tournament wins over the next generation of greats will be significant and could improve his SATERICCON ratings so he passes Becker and Edberg.  Sampras, Borg, Nadal and McEnroe seem unobtainable and surpassing Connors will depend on his success against a younger generation of future slam winners perhaps including Juan Martin Del Potro (should he return successfully from wrist surgery) and maybe Sam Querrey as both Nadal and Djokovic are on the down side of their career grand slam trajectories and are unlikely to add significantly to their totals.  We don’t see a new generation of players on the horizon like Sampras and Agassi or Lendl and McEnroe that will catalyze the game via a great rivalry with Federer and Nadal.

If Federer Isn’t the Best of His Era, How Can He Be the Best of All Time?

Simulation Metrics for All Time Greats

Tennis Grand Slam winners have played more than 3,000 matches between each other.  Pantheonists, the 16 greatest tennis players of all time, have played more than 1,400 matches against each other while winning 70% of the available grand slam titles of the Open era.  We crunched the numbers and created two metrics to measure the overall greatness during a career for Pantheonists.  In reviewing the data, we normalized it by considering only matches where players were younger than 31 (there are only a few slam winners over this age) or if there was less than 5 years of age between the players, such as with Sampras and Agassi, we included that data into their later years.

Results are below which show that on a winning percentage vs. other all time greats, Roger Federer ranks #14 on the SITDON scale.  Rafael Nadal’s #1 ranking is built entirely on his dominance over Federer and we consider there to be insufficient data to rank him #1.  We believe that we will need to see Nadal’s performance over the next few years vs. other rising players to clearly see where he ranks among the all time greats, but he has a fantastic start and it is clear that we are now in the midst of the “Nadal” era overshadowing Federer’s era with his defeat of Federer at Grand Slam finals on every surface the last time they played.

On a cumulative quality of slams all surface ranking, Federer ranks #10 all time.  Federer’s all surface slam does little to influence his overall ranking as there was only one other single slam winner in the quarterfinals of his French Open victory.  Assuming Federer does not change stylistically i.e. adapt a kamikaze net rush style at all costs approach like McEnroe, Rafter, Edberg and Sampras in their later years, we don’t anticipate he will win another slam without injuries or upsets to his central competitors.  Nadal is on course to surpass both Borg and McEnroe from a cumulative quality point of view on his next slam victory and may surpass Sampras with 2 or 3 more slams.  We consider this a difficult task since Nadal is the same age as Wilander at the time he won his last slam and one year younger than Borg when he retired.

Our two metrics are SITDON, the Secada Index of Tennis Dominance with Overt Normalization, and SATERICCON, the Secada Absolute Tennis Era Relative Influence and Championship Competitiveness Over Normalization.  SITDON looks at career winning percentage before the player turns 31 to determine how they did vs. other all time greats.  We consider this to be an excellent substitute for weeks at number 1 ranking and number of slams won.  From our point of view, SITDON is the equivalent of baseball ERA which tells you week in, week out, what was the consistency of that player.  However, SITDON is far more granular as it only looks at the statistics in matches between all time greats, like pitching against Reggie Jackson or Barry Bonds and does not include the equivalent of baseball’s bum of the month.

SATERICCON, measures individual greatness at any point in time.  Though SITDON measures overall career performance, SATERICCON answers the question, in a tournament of the greatest players, who would win those tournaments?   Historically, who was the greatest at the instant when it mattered.   It is a complementary statistic to our Slam Triple metric yet it considers the cumulative value of winning a number of slams which may be less competitive vs. winning a few ultra-competitive slams.  So it answers the question, if you won a slam in the ultra competitive 1987-1993 period, how would that translate into playing in slams in the far less competitive, A32 era and vice versa.

Normalization is the process of looking at data, in this case, 1,400 plus match results and selecting the good data while throwing out the bad.  Though not a perfect process we erred on the side of conservatism in determining when a player was at or near their peak.   In this case we included all data for players from the time they began playing pro tournaments to their 31^st birthday.  Long-playing champions such as Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Agassi are rewarded by both metrics for their longevity.  They are more than just champions for tennis, they are part of the fabric of the sport, tennis DNA.

SITDON has 4 advantages over other measures.   (1) it eliminates factors that others say make era comparison indeterminate such as equipment,  fitness or seedings.  All that matters is the results between top players, (2) it makes it easier to evaluate how age, mileage and style impact the outcome of a match and (3) it refines overall win record and overall match record to only those matches between the greatest players of eras at their peak.   (4) It eliminates computer ranking which is frequently subverted for business to incentify players to play more with higher risk of injury.

SITDON is an absolute measure of competitiveness between Pantheonists in the same era.  Federer’s total match record vs. Pantheonists ranks him 15^th all time in number of matches and with normalization, he ranks 14^th out of 16 in winning percentage vs. Pantheonists  as well.  John Newcombe  takes the last spot as all of his wins over Laver and Rosewall are eliminated via normalization i.e. they were all over 30 when he played them.  Even without normalization i.e. elimination of matches vs. Pantheonists far from their peak, Federer finishes near last in the Pantheon.

Note:  though cumulative career statistics matter on an absolute basis, there is a danger in quoting mid-career statistics average or percentile statistics for tennis players as they are surely to decline in the second half of a career.  Nadal and Federer’s percentages and averages are surely to decline as has every Pantheonist before them as they play longer and deeper into the latter half of their careers.

SITDON measures what would happen if Pantheonists were to play one singles match against each other, SATERICCON measures what would happen if Pantheonists were to play a succession of matches against each other.   SATERICCON’s basis is to determine who was greatest when the greatest all played each other assuming a winner of an all time great tourney would be indicated by past performance.

To create this measure, we use analytic methodology and then we consider ancient and present competitive folklore.  Larry Holmes was undefeated in his first 44 bouts beating an old Muhammad Ali in 15 rounds.  Ali defeated 6 heavyweight champs in or near their prime.  Experts consider Ali a greater champion.  Michael Jordan’s Bulls became champs after beating Isiah Thomas’ Detroit Pistons (at their prime) who had beaten the Celtics and Lakers before them.    Olajuwon’s Rockets won the championship when Jordan semi-retired and the Bulls and Pistons were long past their glory.  They disappeared when Jordan returned.  Jordan’s Bulls are considered greater than the Rockets.

In the Trojan war, Achilles retired briefly over compensation issues, in the interim period Hector laid waste the Greeks slaying far more than Achilles that year and nearly destroying their navy, almost altering history.  But when Achilles came out of retirement, everyone well knew who would win, it was destiny.  Our methodology borrows heavily from this philosophy and the Highlander series.  When the Highlander defeats another Highlander he gains the power of that Highlander and all their previous victims.   Likewise in the Volsunga Saga of Nordic and Germanic literature, if you defeat a dragon and eat it’s heart you gain it’s power.  When measuring greatness, history has always looked at the quality of your victories over the quantity. In SATERICCON, when you defeat another slam champ or the person who defeated them in the slam, you gain their power rating as a cumulative score.

We measure the overall difficulty of winning a grand slam championship by the quality of the field at the quarterfinal stage of the tournament.  We consider the number of grand slams won by the other quarterfinalists, excluding the winner and score the slam as having the value of difficulty assigned by all quarterfinalists.   So for example, Pete Sampras’ first Wimbledon championship had Jim Courier, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Goran Ivanisevic and Andre Agassi in the quarterfinals.  The cumulative score of that win is a 28 which is the number of career slams by those players.  In Federer’s first US Open victory, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt and Andre Agassi were quarterfinalists .  Those players won 11 grand slams between them and Federer’s score is an 11.  However, to come up with a true “normalized” measure of greatness, we only measure players who were at or near their peak in skills and athleticism, so Federer’s score was reduced to 3 by eliminating Agassi who was already 33 at the time of this tournament.  Every player was impacted by this measure as almost each player had an all time great long past their prime in the quarterfinals of one or more of their championships.

The impact of normalization on Federer’s record is far greater since he has played  so few Pantheonists and is dominated by Nadal, the only other Pantheon player in his era.  Without normalization, based on his wins over a 33 year old Agassi, Federer would move past Becker and Wilander on the all time list but that would only get him to #8 all time on an all surface basis.  It was important to use the cumulative score of grandslam wins vs the average score as it balances out the dearth of grand slam champs Federer defeated per tournament but gives him extra points for his cumulative slam wins.  (On an average Slam victory Q-Rating score basis, Federer would rank near last.)  This study does not address what would have happened if Lendl had given up his Quixotic quest for a Wimbledon title and won 2 more French Opens, what would have happened if McEnroe had not taken a break during his career or what would have happened should Jimmy Connors have been allowed to play the French Open in 1974.  All these players ranked ahead of Federer in SITDON and SATERICCON rating.

To create the metric for competitiveness of grand slam victory, we used Federer as the baseline for all other players since so many journalists and talking heads rank Federer as #1 we gave Federer’s cumulative score a 1 and then graded the other players on a scale relative to Federer.  Though several other players have won a Slam Triple, Federer has never been able to do it which questions his ability to win a tournament of all time greats.  Though our SATERICCON rating does not say Pete Sampras is 2.37 more likely to win an average slam than Federer (though we think it is positively indicative), it does say he is far more likely to win a slam 2.37 times more difficult than Federer.

We also eliminated the Australian Open from consideration because it had little relevance in tennis until it became the first slam on the calendar in 1987.  Players like Orantes never played the Australian Open and Borg and Nastase played in it once.  Next, The toughest tournaments of all time on each surface and the winners.

SHOTS, the Hierarchy of Tennis Supremacy

There are around 1 million articles or comments on the internet about Sampras vs. Federer.  Few articles ask, in a tournament of all time greats on any surface, exactly who would Federer (the first seed by A32 rules) beat and how?  If you had to bet your last dime on who would win a tournament of all time greats, would it go towards Federer or someone else?  To understand this concept we created SHOTS, Secada’s Hierarchy Of Tennis Supremacy.  We discuss SHOTS at the midway point of this article while delving into more of Federer’s career statistics comparisons in the next few paragraphs.

Successor Champions

Successor champions occur in tennis when the prior number 1 player is on the decline or has retired and there is a succession fight for number 1.  Martina Hingis, became number 1 without beating Steffi Graf; Roy Emerson remained amateur as other Aussies turned pro.  Sampras is the only open era player to win a slam in his teens, 20’s and 30’s.  Federer never won a Sampras era slam.  He became number 1 after Sampras retired and as Agassi became too long in the tooth to compete with him as displayed in the  “rope a dope” 2005 US Open final.   With Sampras and Rafter’s retirement, tennis saw the same absence of high quality serve and volleyers experienced in the 1974 – 1980 era when the Australian greats retired.

Federer’s career winning percentage of 80.66% trails Borg, Lendl and Connors.  In the diluted A32 era, he won 16 slams, a career grand slam and reached more semifinals than others (as the A32 rules enabled).  Federer won the French Open when there was only a one time slam winner in the quarterfinals.   He lost his last 3 slam finals to Nadal on every surface.  But Federer’s career slam is exaggerated and, SATERICCON analysis shows, happened with weaker fields.  Connors was undefeated in slams  in 1974 dominating Borg on clay.  Would he have won the French Open, and completed a one year slam if he had not been banned from the tourney?

What happens when we adjust for all time greats i.e. Pantheonists who have won slams on all surfaces.  In that case both Connors and Nadal enter the discussion and Federer’s all surface slam Q-rating is last using our SATERICCON methodology.  Nadal’s supremacy over Federer is dispositive  since no other top Pantheon player has had a significant losing record on every surface against another during their period of dominance.  If Federer wasn’t his era’s best, how could he be the greatest ever?

Federer’s Career All Surface Slam Quality (Q) Rank
via SATTERICON Analysis
1		Connors
2		Nadal
3		Wilander
4		Agassi
5/Last		Federer

With SATERICCON on an all surface slam record we modify it to take only the best results on that surface during a slam victory.  Each player ranked ahead of Federer beat a field more than twice as competitive as Federer’s in their respective all surface slams.   On that basis, Connors wins over Borg on hard courts and clay to win the US Open and his grass win over McEnroe at Wimbledon are dispositive with Nadal ranking a slight second.

Nadal is a classic all time great emerging as a teen like McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Becker, Wilander and Agassi and he won a grand slam early in his career.  Federer was unable to show an extra gear vs. Nadal on any surface, unlike a Boris Becker on grass vs. Edberg or Lendl on hard courts vs. Wilander.   We saw the limit of his game.

Federer’s 82% and declining, winning percent against non-slam winners matches Sampras’ first 874 matches at the same point in his career.   Federer’s record against non Pantheon slam winners was built on a gaudy 40-5 record against 1 time slam winners and baseliners (for the most part) such as Gaston Gaudio, Thomas Johansson, Juan Carlos Ferrero and Andy Roddick  (not a natural serve and volleyer).  Sampras’ record against the power serve and volleyers Krajicek and Stich was no better than 8-10.  Outside those players, Sampras overall record is superior to Federer’s.  With respect to matches between Pantheonists, Sampras ranks first for players with more than 35 of these matches, Federer last.

Creating a Framework for Tennis Greatness

So how do you control for rule changes and the many other variables in different eras of tennis when tennis corporatists inflate statistics and smooth the way to championships?  In a tournament of all time greats, who would win?  SHOTS is a 4 step pyramid where to get to the highest level of realization, you must first complete the prior levels.  Level one is experience as a Grand Slam winner.  Level 2 is experience as a top 16 Grand Slam winner (Pantheon level player).  Level 3 is won-lost percentage vs. other Pantheonists as reflected in SITDON analysis.  Level 4 is the difficulty of slam championships won using SATERICCON analysis or Slam Quality (Q) Rating.  So although one can argue that today’s players may be taller, stronger and use better equipment or that the fields have been diluted due to rule and surface changes, they can’t argue the number of slam winners at any one tournament or their head to head record.  It is known data.

.

Our Hiearchy of Tennis Supremacy is dominated by SITDON – Normalized head to head record and SATERICCON – Normalized difficulty of winning a slam.

GOVERNING TENNIS PREDICTIVE MODELS

Tennis is governed by a few 80-20 rules of match play.  After 3-5 matches it becomes settled science as to who will win 80% of the time if one player shows dominance over the other, moreso in a slam with Pantheonists as seen in this year’s Wimbledon final between Nadal and Berdych.  The lone caveat is a “breakthrough” event when a player reaches another level of tennis such as Pete Sampras after his loss to Stefan Edberg at the 1992 US Open or Ivan Lendl after his French Open victory over John McEnroe.   They both went to a next level of greatness, dominating most opposition and fighting the remainder to a draw at worst.  In contrast, each time Federer lost to Nadal, he came back and lost worse the next year.  Watching Nadal’s career progression shows that Nadal has an extra gear that Federer doesn’t.

Absent match competitive data, style of play matters, certain players have a style that beat other players.  Kick serve and volleyer Rafter dominated Federer, similarly styled Edberg may have the same result.  Left handed Nadal dominated Federer at his prime, then left handed, kick serving McEnroe, a clutch player, may have a significant chance against Federer.   Or if Agassi who hits off the bounce early, dominated Federer, then Connors a similar lefty may have a chance against Federer and his backhand.

And finally, youth triumphs over experience when there is a significant age difference and mileage.   For example, Jimmy Connors overall career record vs. Pantheonists is less than 40%.  When isolating for when he was at his peak i.e. younger than 31 and eliminating players over 31, his normalized performance was 57% about the same as Borg.  And of course a young Federer beats a 35 year old Agassi.  Next, SITDON analysis of the Federer record – crunching the numbers.

Comparing Tennis Eras, Why Federer’s Second Half Matters

Wimbedon’s first week is midway and tennis pundits will discuss how much more Roger Federer will extend his lead on the other all-time great tennis players in the great players’ Pantheon.  Disbelievers will be silenced looking for arguments like, ”Could Federer have beaten Becker, Edberg or McEnroe on fast courts?” or “If Federer couldn’t beat an aging Rafter or Agassi before they turned 31 how could he beat them at their best?”.   If you have heard the reply, “can’t compare eras tennis”, you are not alone as Googling for that statement comes up more than 2 million times in results.  But you can compare eras.

We at Secada Labs have analyzed more than 3,000 tennis matches played between all time greats, “The Pantheon” and other slam winners across the Open era(s) and more than 1,400 matches between the 16 players who comprise “The Pantheon”, winners of 4 or more Grand Slams during the open era.  Using our patent pending SITDON and SATERICCON methodology and based on our copyright pending SHOTS framework, we have come up with an absolute measure of tennis greatness.  The framework and metrics answer 3 questions.   (1)  How do you measure all time greatness?  (2) What was the level of greatness of any player in the tennis pantheon at the time they were playing?  (3) What was the level of greatness of the field of any tournament won by an all time great?

The Pantheon of All Time Great Players
4 Slam Victors or More (top 16)
Roger Federer		Mats Wilander
Pete Sampras		Stefan Edberg
Bjorn Borg		Boris Becker
Jimmy Connors		Rod Laver
Ivan Lendl		Jim Courier
Andre Agassi		Guillermo Vilas
Rafael Nadal		Ken Rosewall
John McEnroe		John Newcombe

Federer’s Rank Among All Time Greats

We ran the analysis and Federer ranked no greater than 6^th on all time basis on any surface even when weighted in favor of his “volume” of slam victories rather than the average competitiveness of those wins.   Indeed, 5 players, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and 3 Americans, Pete Sampras, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors ranked ahead of Federer on a weighted average basis on his two best surfaces and Federer ranked 7 overall on a blended basis.  Sampras, Edberg and McEnroe ranked ahead of Federer on both surfaces.  We think back to the old Reebok commercial where Shaq is faced with the Pantheon of great centers, he shows his prowess and they reply, “That isn’t enough” .   Federer’s record of beating tennis also-rans with a rapidly diminishing tournament record has not been enough.  The last part of Federer’s career will determine his place in the Pantheon.

Before drilling down into the numbers there are 3 philosophical arguments that are the basis of the study and need to be asked in any comparison.

Comparing All Time Greats

(1) How do you compare all time greats?  Does the level of competition matter.  Does Muhammad Ali’s triumphs over 6 heavyweight champs in or near their prime make his fights more meaningful than Larry Holmes victories over an aged Ali and Ken Norton and a succession of unknowns?   Does the Quality (Q rating)  of who you beat or the Q rating of the overall tournament matter as much as what you win?

(2)  Though all time slam records matter, any determination of greatness would be determined by a tournament of champions or long term competition.  So though people may say that Federer’s defeat of an aging Sampras long past his Wimbledon peak is exemplary of his likely outcome with Sampras (we disagree), the question remains how many times would Federer beat Sampras out of 10 matches, 5 out of 10, 6 out of 10?  Could Federer win in a tournament of 16 people where he could face an Agassi or Connors in their prime in the first round, then Lendl or Vilas then Edberg or Becker before he ever faced Sampras?  We know the answer to that for Sampras as he is one of the few who has won such a tournament as have Edberg and Becker.   The answer is unknown for Federer.

(3)  If grand slams or “Majors” are the gold standard of measuring tennis success and championships are the coin of the realm, what happens when the gold in the coinage is diluted?  In the book “eight centuries of financial folly” The authors stated “Many of the earliest financial crises occurred when monarchs of a country reduced the gold or silver content of their coinage to finance budget shortfalls”  Did rule changes occur in tennis that diluted the value of slam championships by increasing the likelihood that top players would reach later rounds as seeded?  Did rule changes occur, (like slowing down the court and balls at Wimbledon) that favored one style of play over another. Although our study eliminates equipment changes  as a factor in greatness, 2001 tennis rule changes have had many unintended consequences that unequally favor a champion over challengers and certain styles of play over others.

More to come in our next part – The 2002 Slow Court era – Saving the Tennis Brand

Note:  Credit goes to Phil Secada, who is loosely associated with Secada Labs for serving as a backboard and devil’s advocate about these concepts with respect to Federer all time.

Secadametrics Introduction

Welcome, we’ve been blogging on the finance industry for more than 2 years on another blog.  This is more of a blog site to discuss social and cultural topics using mostly quantitative approaches and some times more qualitative.   Our background is in mathematics, statistics, computer science and finance.

First posts will cover tennis and Roger Federer’s relative record as we wrap up Wimbledon and move towards the US Open.