By Almost Every Measure Nadal is the Greatest

Recently Andre Agassi said that Rafael Nadal was the greatest tennis player of all time. As if he was a reader of our blog, he said (1) “I’d put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2,”, (2) “Nadal had to deal with Federer, (Novak) Djokovic, (Andy) Murray in the golden age of tennis. He has done what he has done and he’s not done yet.” And (3) “It’s just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer’s prime.” Perhaps no one would be better qualified to answer that question as Agassi dominated Federer 3-0 before he got too old at 33 to last a full match with him.

With Agassi’s impetus, we revisit our prior metrics established for player performance over their careers. In particular our methodology which is called the “Secada Tennis Equivalency Rating” or STER.

Echoing Agassi, Roger Federer has 17 grand slam wins. A record unlikely to be equalled according to John Ryle and the folks at 538. Rafael Nadal has 14 grand slams. Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces twice and 9 French Opens. Records unlikely to be equalled.

In such a great debate, most people would ask what was the head to head between the rivals. As in the Super Bowl or the NCAA basketball championships, the person who wins is usually the better player. A great argument for tennis’ lack of popularity as a sport among viewers is that this is not the case in tennis, 1+1 is not 2. Almost all tennis columnists argue Federer is the greatest. A few others are fence sitters on this topic and Rafael Nadal is treated by the sports media like Pancho Gonzalez was 60 years ago by the tennis world. Few of these journalists were ever tournament tennis players and even fewer have any sort of quantitative background. None can admit they missed the tennis story of the 21st century which is Rafael Nadal’s all time greatness.

Below, we take a deeper dive into the data focusing primarily on Nadal and Federer.

Nadal vs. Federer Rivalry

Most tennis journalists and commentators who look at the Nadal – Federer rivalry shrug off Nadal’s 23-10 dominance. But two facts show Nadal’s absolute domination which is greater than the actual record. Grass court tennis (Wimbledon) is played about 4 weeks during the tennis year and indoor tennis primarily the Masters, is played for 4-6 weeks during the tennis year. So in a year of tennis about 80% of the tennis is played on hard courts or clay. Nadal’s record vs. Federer on those surfaces is 9-2 on Hard Courts and 13-2 on Clay. 4 of Federer’s wins against Nadal have been indoors where Nadal is ineffective and 2 have come on Grass where Federer has not beaten Nadal since he was 21. So for about 80% of the tennis season Nadal is an overwhelming favorite to beat Federer 85% of the time.

As we discussed in a prior blog post, Federer has not had a tournament win in a grand slam against Nadal since Nadal was 21. And Nadal has beaten Federer the last time they played in the finals of every slam on every surface. So a betting person would see Nadal as the odds-on favorite on every surface against Federer except indoors where tennis is rarely played.

Inside the Federer – Nadal Match

But what about inside the match? We developed a new metric to quantify the difference between Nadal and Federer. Federer usually holds an advantage in aces and service winners against Nadal, but what happens when the point gets into play? If Nadal gets the ball back, what chance does Federer have in the point? We created the Secada Point Differential, Less Ace Differential (SPODLAD) metric to account for this. SPODLAD is simply the calculation of point differential per match i.e. the difference in points won per match, less the ace differential per match. Prior to Nadal’s turning 22 Nadal’s SPODLAD vs. Federer in matches he won was about 13 points.

Since turning 22, Nadal’s average SPODLAD vs. Federer in wins has widened to a 20 point advantage. So since learning how to beat Federer in his early years, it has become much easier. In 85% of Federer’s hard court and clay court matches against Nadal, he starts at a 20 point disadvantage off serve which is like being 1-2 points behind every game in a 2 set match. Why play the match, just bring the shellac!

Indeed in Federer’s 2007 Wimbledon win against Nadal, Nadal had a superior SPODLAD of 16 but Federer served 23 more aces and several more service winners to provide the winning margin. You might say, “Eureka, that’s it, Federer has a great serve”, but he doesn’t. Federer hasn’t had a 20 Ace differential match against Nadal since the 2008 Wimbledon. The Ace differential since then is about 5 Aces per match in wins or losses. Note: Federer’s serve has not improved speedwise since 2007 while Nadal has added 10 miles per hour to his serve on faster services. Even more telling, Federer’s SPODLAD in wins against Nadal is 6 in his career and when eliminating indoor tourneys is less than 3. When Federer wins, it is by the skin of his teeth.

Comparative Slam Victories

We dug even deeper. What about the 17 grand slams Federer has vs. Nadal’s 14. Critics say that matters. To measure that, we developed the Secada Finals Efficiency Rating (SFER).

In the past we have used the Secada Total Opponent Slams (STOS) as a measure of the quality of the opponent a slam winner beat in the finals. STOS takes the number of slams an opponent has won during the career and assigns a numerical power rating to that number. So in 17 Slams Federer’s opponents have won a respectable total of 55 grand slams in their careers or about 3 career slams on average. Meanwhile, Nadal’s opponents have won 124 grand slams between them or about 9 slams on average. Nadal is 6-2 vs Federer at Slam finals and has not lost to him at a slam final since he was 21 years old.

But world renowned tennis historian, Phil Secada, suggested we look at the actual Grand Slam championships won at that point in time by opponents and zeroed out the slams won against champions past their prime (Andre Agassi) and slams not yet won. We call this the Secada Finals Efficiency Rating for Power (SFERP). In other words, SFERP takes the number of slams won by the champion’s opponents only up until that point in time to normalize the data for relative match experience.

And Nadal continues to impress. His opponents still have a record 87 grand slams under their belts between them as Nadal has beaten Djokovic twice since Djokovic’s 6th grand slam victory and Federer 4 times since his 12th slam.

But Federer’s SFERP rating of 12 tell a different story.

New York Times Wine Diarist and Sommelier Journal writer – Michael Steinberger (seriously, tennis is that unpopular, no really) claims Federer is the all time greatest because he set records against chumps and babies. Federer has no championship wins against all time great players in their prime. Federer’s wins against Murray and Djokovic in Slam finals was before they won a slam. Just because somebody won during a weak year doesn’t mean that year (that title) is as good as someone who won during a great year. In layman’s terms “Shakespeare in Love” won the Academy Award in a weak movie year. Does that make it as good as “Gone With the Wind” or “Titanic” or “Gladiator” that all won out over other great movies? HECK NO! In tennis parlance, John McEnroe’s Wimbledon victory over 5 time defending champion Bjorn Borg is far greater than Pat Cash’s win over non titlist Ivan Lendl. OF COURSE!

How About Federer vs. Djokovic?

Federer never beat a player with more than 3 slam victories in the finals of a slam and once he has lost to a player at a slam final he has not beaten that person again at the same slam. In contrast, after Nadal lost to Djokovic at the 2011 US Open, he came back and defeated Djokovic at the 2013 final. Nadal has beaten players with more than 3 slam victories in their prime at 9 slam finals, another record! The next closest are Ivan Lendl and Sampras with 4 finals wins against players with more than 3 slam victories. And Djokovic’s Ascension to arguably the #1 player the last 4 years has had an impact on Nadal. The last time we calculated all time winning percent against all time greats, Nadal was #1 with a 66% rate. Since then and with several losses to Djokovic, Nadal is now #4 in all time winning percent against other all time greats at 57.8%. And we expect Nadal’s winning percent to continue to decline against the younger Djokovic.

What about other measures. SITDON and SATERICCON are quantitative, analytical metrics created to measure the body of a tennis players career as a whole vs. the field. It looks at the Grand Slam championships of rivals in the tournament and rivals played. As your opponents records improve, your own ranking goes up. According to our SITDON and SATERICCON 2014 All Time Rankings, Federer has finally surpassed Pete Sampras as an all court champion. But, Federer himself has been surpassed as an all court champion by Novak Djokovic. On a total points basis Rafael Nadal is way out in front with 292 points, Federer has 170 points but Novak Djokovic has 171 points. Pete Sampras has 161 points.

Djokovic has rocketed ahead based on superior competition in tournaments he has won including this year’s Wimbledon. We expect, with little competition in sight and a game like Agassi’s built to last, Djokovic will win a few more fast surface slams before his career is over putting him far ahead of Federer. Again, below are all time rankings based on draw competitiveness. Of players with more than 6 championships in our top 8 rankings based on tournament competitiveness, Federer has won against the weakest finalists in aggregate. Nadal has won against the strongest finalists followed by Sampras, McEnroe and Djokovic.

With this data, now ask any one of these commentators if their money was on the line in a head to head who would they bet on and it would be Nadal. What about the third best player of the era, Novak Djokovic. In the last 5 years, Federer is 2-4 in slams against the Djoker (6-6 all time), Nadal is 5-3 vs. Djoker in the same period and 9-3 overall. So who would you bet to have the best chance against the third best player of the era at their prime? So right, you would bet against Federer playing Nadal and Djoker, but Federer is the best?!? HE ISN’T!!!If Federer isn’t the best of his era by 2, he can’t he be the best of all time.

Wimbledon 2012 Becomes First Indoor Slam

Wimbledon 2012 is over and we aim to cover the major themes as discussed by the media using the data and science available to understand what happened. Many might have wondered what was going on with the tournament as it seemed there were two very different tournaments being played. One a grass court spectacle and the other an indoor tennis tournament favoring a different style player.

As we have pointed out in the past, the ATP tour rolled out the 32 player seeded draw to ensure there were fewer upsets so the top seeds could reach the finals of tournaments. Though Rafael Nadal was upset, 4 of the top 5 seeds reached the semifinals. The Wimbledon gods smiled on Federer where he faced no top 28 seeds until the semifinals. Then he played his next and final two matches indoors vs. Djokovic and a Palooka named Andy Murray in the finals. Though the Murray match was a close affair at first, the match was converted into an indoor venue midway ultimately changing the elements of the Championship. Federer is the first winner in Wimbledon history to face 3 players in a row (who he was 26-2 versus) over 30 years old at the tourney.

What to make of Nadal’s loss after 5 ESPN analysts picked him to win the tourney and we saw him as a heavy favorite? In the last 2 years, the majority of Nadal’s losses to players not named Federer and Djokovic have been to players 6’3″ or taller who tend to hit flat down the line passing shots off Nadal’s topspin forehand. These players, like Mardy Fish, Juan Martin Del Potro and Robin Soderling have massive firepower off both sides.

The 6’5″ Lukas Rosol played in the same vein in an out of his tree, partially indoor match firing 22 aces and facing only 4 break points in 25 service games. When he wasn’t firing aces, he was blasting huge groundstrokes hitting 65 winners including 14 winners off Nadal’s serve. Nadal may be the only person in history to play 51 games in a match with only 16 unforced errors (in 276 points) and lose.

Tied at 2 sets a piece with sunlight dimming, Nadal expected to complete his match the next day. However, the Wimbledon tournament officials determined to finish matches on schedule for television, decided to play the last set under lights with the rooftop closed.

When the rooftop is shut at Centre Court the tennis environment changes noticeably. Players have complained of getting a clammy feeling as all wind is eliminated and a centrally controlled environment of 74 F / 33 C degrees is implemented. Humidity condenses and impact of sunlight on the tourney goes away.

So for Nadal, a match that was being played at dusk suddenly became a mid afternoon match with indoor lighting meant to simulate mid-day. Moreover, the impact of his slower spin shots which wreak havoc in outdoor conditions with wind and the “Magnus” effect are negated since there is no wind to vary the spin of the ball.

There hasn’t been a more terrifying set of circumstances against a Spaniard as Nadal faced in the fifth set since the Spanish Armada wrecked on the shores of Ireland. After 4 sets, Nadal had more aces than Rosol and trailed in winners by only 9 shots. In the 5th set, Rosol hit 33% of his aces with 7 to Nadal’s 3 getting in an incredible 19 of 23 first serves. When he wasn’t serving 5th set aces, Rosol hit 20 winners to Nadal’s 5 doubling his margin of winners in the match in one set alone. And just like that, Wimbledon became any man’s tournament.

The Indoor / Outdoor scenario played itself out time after time as Federer was blessed with an indoor semi-final against Djokovic. At the 2011 US Open final Federer and Djokovic were about the same in winners and aces with the decisive figure being unforced errors where Federer hit 59 vs Djokovic’s 35. At the 2011 Australian Open, Djokovic hit 10 more winners and 10 less unforced errors than Federer. But in mid 2012, an older Federer playing without interference from the elements hit only 10 unforced errors to Djokovic’s 21 over 4 sets while hitting more winners and aces.

In the final, the first two sets against Murray were a close affair as Murray has split 16 matches vs Federer evenly. But the match again turned dramatically when the roof was closed. In the first two sets, Murray held a slight edge in aces with Federer having a slight edge in winners. But Murray had a lopsided advantage in unforced errors hitting only 9 to Federer’s 24. After the roof was closed the match turned dramatically as Federer hit 32 winners in the last 2 sets and only 14 unforced errors. Pete Sampras looked down from the tennis pantheon and thought to himself “how many slams would I have won with a rooftop?”

The issues with Wimbledon’s rooftop are well known. In 2009 when the rooftop first premiered, Andy Murray slammed it for the impact on the game. He claimed which was later confirmed by an International Tennis Federation scientist that the grass became more slippery as the closed roof and artificial environment caused humidity to condense on the grass. In Murray’s first service game where he was broken in the third set of the final in 2012, he slipped full to the ground 3 times on different points he lost.

Other players describe the air under rooftop as treacle, slowing the ball down during play. The shot spot system has shown that serves can slow down as much as 5 mph indoors. from when the roof is not closed. Professor Steve Haake, of Sheffield Hallam University’s department of sports engineering, who is also a consultant to the International Tennis Federation says ‘We have conducted blind tests on top tennis players, and they are so sensitive they can tell immediately there has been even the smallest changes to their rackets and strings.’

The New York Times also sites that for the first time, night time matches are being played at Wimbledon, upsetting what players are used to from a scheduling perspective.

And what of Wimbledon itself. This was the oldest men’s round of 16 in history with the average age of competitors 27.8 years old. At the 2010 Australian Open there was a 21 year old breakout talent, Marin Cilic, who made it to the men’s semifinal. At this year’s Wimbledon, 2.5 years later, the youngest person in the men’s round of 16 was again Marin Cilic. Wimbledon who has had breakout titlists under 22 such as John McEnroe, Jimmy Connnors, Bjorn Borg, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi has not had a 21 and under winner since Roger Federer in 2003. As John McEnroe says in an ESPN on Novak Djokovic, and is quoted in the blog, tennishasasteroidsproblem, “The level of play is mind-boggling,” says John McEnroe, commentating for NBC during a recent match. “I’m still trying to figure out how these guys do it.”

Surprising as in every other sport in the world, besides cycling, career longevity is declining. Tennis oldsters are hanging onto the top 10 like some sort of characters from “Interview With a Vampire”.

Meanwhile, the US has little new tennis talent. Donald Young continues his downward spiral. Ryan Harrison exited in the second round like last year. John Isner also exited early. No Americans under 24 moved up in the top 100 as a result of the tourney.

And tennis ratings are at there lowest point ever as the Federer / Nadal era has brought such decline in the sport that Wimbledon broadcasts are no longer available on network television. Feeding the tennis world the same matches over and over in finals over a 10 year span has left fans to say, “I’ll watch it when something is different” Tennis has entered the last tier of sports viewing and what happens when Federer and Nadal retire?

Wimbledon – Nadal’s For The Taking

Rafael Nadal’s momentum from his Roland Garros victory and the relative success that lefties have at Wimbledon vs. other slams makes this year’s Wimbledon, Nadal’s for the taking.

In most years, a number 1 ranked, defending champ would be the overwhelming favorite. But Novak Djokovic is settling back into his pre-2011 routines rather than his 2011 invincibility. Last year Djokovic lost only 1 match from January through all of July. This year he has already lost 6 matches putting him on pace for an average year by his standards of 16-20 losses. Djokovic’s 2012 looks like his prior years where he is an October-March player winning the end of year Masters or Beijing, then January Australian, Dubai or Indian Wells or Miami as he has done multiple years but nothing from April to September. He has lost to Nadal 3 times in a row and did not play in a Wimbledon warmup (except an exhibition).

Though there is no historical precedent of players meeting in 4 consecutive Grand Slam finals, we think the direction of the rivalry is in Nadal’s favor. The Australian Open final where Djokovic had to labor almost 6 hours to win after handling Nadal in the 2 prior slam finals was a turning point in the rivalry. In most cases, when a player masters another player with 3 consecutive victories, the matches get easier e.g. Jimmy Connors vs. Ken Rosewall. On Djokovic’s best surface at his favorite slam, he barely beat Nadal for his third straight victory. Since then, it has been all Nadal.

We think this rivalry is like McEnroe vs. Lendl. Djokovic’s 2011 was analogous to McEnroe’s 1984 season where McEnroe dominated Lendl, but the remainder of their careers was dominated by Lendl. Djokovic has a relatively easy draw unless Eastbourne semifinalist, Ryan Harrison, grows a pair … of groundstrokes – forehand and backhand – to complement his superb serve and volleying talent. Otherwise, it’s Tomas Berdych in the quarters whose sole win in 10 matches vs. Djoker has been on grass and then Roger Federer in the semis.

Federer is playing in the weakest quarter yet concerns remain about his ability to go the distance.

Nadal is likely to return to the finals since he has made every Wimbledon final he has entered since he was 20. Big-serving but big-point bungling, Jo Tsonga, is a darkhorse who has beaten Nadal on Grass (Queens Club). If Nadal gets by Tsonga in the quarters, he faces Andy Murray who he has beaten 3 times at Wimbledon without a loss or one of the hard ballers from Murray’s quarter.

Though big serve and volley winners are as unusual at Wimbledon as dragons in “Game of Thrones”, we expect the most exciting play out of Murray’s quarter with Del Potro, Raonic, Roddick, Querrey, Kevin Anderson and Ivo Karlovic serving more aces than the rest of the draw combined.

We look forward to lots of sound and fury coming out of the banger’s quarter and then the usual finalists in Nadal, Djokovic or Federer with Nadal winning either of those matchups.

Palookas Named Andy – The Making of the Roger Federer Legend

More quick metrics following Nadal’s latest domination of the French Open. Our own ratings have Nadal at Number 1 with 7 Frenchies beating a cumulative field twice as good as Borg did in his 6 slams. Nadal has also passed Sampras on the cumulative power list of quality slam victories.

A former pro player mentioned to us that Nadal and Djokovic were beating Federer when he was not at his peak. And, that Federer, as the winner of 16 slams, is just better. This is mind numbingly dumb as 99% of society believes that in any sports endeavor when someone beats someone else, the winner is better than the loser. Nadal’s 6 title wins at Grand Slam finals without a loss to Federer the last 5 years dictates pure superiority. But not for that slim .1% of the tennis intelligentsia and innumerates like Peter Bodo. No wonder other sports fans don’t take tennis seriously. So we have a new metric to cut through the argument.

At #3 in the world, Federer is still at his peak. Since Federer’s first loss to Nadal at the 2006 French Open final when he was 24, Federer has reached the finals of more than 40 atp tournaments or about 47% of his total finals. There has been very little dropoff in performance unlike for example, Lleyton Hewitt, who reached only 9 finals or the last 20% of his career finals after his 2004 loss to Federer at the finals of the US Open and quickly fell out of the ATP top 3. Our eyes don’t deceive us, Federer at his peak is simply not as good as Nadal or Djokovic at their peak.

Below, we have a table that looks at the players Nadal beat in his Grand Slam finals vs. the players Federer and Sampras beat for their championships. Nadal owned Federer 6 times (from Federer at 24 years old to 29, beating him on every surface) and Djokovic twice to win 8 of his 11 championships. Putting a cumulative score on the number of slam wins of Nadal’s opponents, that amount is 106. For Sampras his cumulative score is 48. Federer’s cumulative score is 43 of which 27 come from beating Nadal and Djokovic before they turned 21.5 years old.

Unlike Nadal and Federer, Sampras 3 times beat 3 other grand slam winners to win a slam. His field was much tougher and he didn’t have a 32 seed draw to protect him from early round challengers. Sampras also was winner in 2 of the toughest Wimbledons and US Opens ever played. Nadal won a single slam defeating 3 prior slam winners but never repeated that feat. Federer never accomplished this. Another feat that Sampras accomplished that Federer did not near the end of his career is that when Sampras lost to Marat Safin at the US Open finals in 2000, he came back and defeated him in the subsequent year’s championship. Once Federer has lost to Nadal and Djokovic on any surface at a Slam, he has never beaten them again at that Slam.

But just who did Federer beat at his slam championships. Close scrutiny shows he won against a collections of journeymen named Andy (Palookas), Nadal and Djokovic before their prime (Puppies) and the Ghost of Andre Agassi. Four of Federer’s slam victories, and 4 of his cumulative “points” came against Andy Roddick. Andy Roddick never should have won the 2003 US Open. He was losing to David Nalbandian 2 sets to love, in a 3rd set tiebreaker with the score 7-7 when a fan called an in ball “Out” and Nalbandian mishit the next ball and lost the next point, the next two sets and the match. Another 2 of Federer’s slams came against Andy Murray. So 6 of his 16 have come against …

Palookas Named Andy

All Federer’s Slam wins against Nadal and Djokovic came before their peaks. Federer won his first slam at 21 and 11 months old.

Federer’s other big win was against an over the hill, 35 year old Agassi. Agassi was a shell of the player that demolished Federer at the US Open in 2002 when he was 32 years old. Taking out Federer’s win over out of his prime Agassi in 2005 with before their prime Nadal and Djokovic (as our former pro would do), his overall slam score falls to a mundane 8 points with wins over Palookas like Andy Murray, Marcos Baghdatis and Robin Soderling.

In contrast Sampras beat a host of players at their peak such as Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Courier and Chang. He was the best player on hard courts until his last tournament, the 2002 US Open, which he won. The year following Sampras’ loss to Marat Safin at the US Open finals, he came back and beat him at the next year’s semifinals. Similarly, Nadal also came back in 2010 to avenge his loss against Soderling at Roland Garros. Federer hasn’t won a Wimbledon, his best surface, since 2009 and that year Nadal was out with a knee injury. It has been 5 years since Federer won a Wimbledon with Nadal in the field. If Nadal isn’t injured or out at the end of 2008 through the beginning of 2010, maybe Federer’s slam count stays at 14 and Nadal’s is at 13.

You can say for the all time greatest, Federer had a very short peak, from 21 years and 11 months old to 25 and 11 months old (the last time he beat Nadal at a slam) unlike any other all time great. Or that his path to number 1 was paved with Palookas named Andy.

Forget About Roy Emerson as an All Time Great Tennis Player

As Rafa Nadal wins his eleventh grand slam, how does he rank against the other all time greats that have won as many or more Grand Slams. Those would be Roger Federer (16), Pete Sampras (14), Bjorn Borg (11) and Roy Emerson (12).

But wait a second, who is Roy Emerson?!? Roy Emerson, Emmo, was an Australian amateur tennis player who is renowned for winning many of the amateur Grand Slam championships in the era just preceding the Open Grand Slams.

From 1920 to 1950 the United States won the Amateur Only Davis Cup 13 times and finished second 9 times. In that same period, Australia won 2 Davis Cup titles and finished second 10 times. (Davis Cup Titlists – http://bit.ly/OuRtOL ). In the late 1940s, Jack Kramer joined and developed the men’s professional tennis circuit.

Quickly the greatest players of the game joined the tour. Any players who had amateur grand slam success went to the next level of play, the pro circuit and Kramer’s championship tour. The US Pro Championships were considered to be the “Pro Grand Slam”

From 1948 through 1954 more than 95% of the quarterfinalists at the US Pro Championships were Americans. The Australians won the Davis Cup from 1950-1953 as the top 8 Americans were playing pro tennis. Frank Sedgman was the first Australian to have an impact on the pro circuit reaching the finals of the US Pro in 1954. He was quickly joined by Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad, but Pancho Gonzalez dominated the championships, winning from 1952 to 1959. Americans still comprised more than 75% of semifinalists at the US Pros from 1955-1962 but Australia won the amateur Davis Cup until Rod Laver turned pro. (US Pro Draws for the 1960’s http://bit.ly/NbbQ6K ). The next year, despite Emmo’s wins in Australia and Roland Garros, the Australians lost the Davis Cup to the United States with Marty Riessen, Dennis Ralston and Arthur Ashe winning the amateur team championship.

Australia adopted a hard line. The Lawn Tennis Association of Australia (LTAA) provided a rich “stipend” for their “amateur” players to keep them amateur. From 1963 to 1966 no new Australians turned pro and qualified into the US Pro Championships and finally in 1967, Fred Stolle turned pro after winning the 1966 US Amateurs despite having a worse Slam record than Emmo.

In the period from 1963 to 1966, Emmo won 10 of his 12 slams. From 1963 – 1965, American amateurs had no budget to travel. More than 80% of top 8 Australian Amateur championship seeds were Australians while at the same time, more than 50% of US Pro quarterfinalists were American. (1963 Australian Open Seeds – http://bit.ly/MBwKGo)

Finally, in 1969, all the amateur championships converted to professional and Rod Laver, the professional champion 3 of the prior 4 years won the Grand Slam again. Emerson never got beyond a quarterfinal of any slams in the pro era, losing in the quarterfinals as defending champion of Roland Garros to the 40 year old Pancho Gonzalez. Jack Kramer in 1979 did not rank Emerson in his list of the top 21 players of all time (http://bit.ly/L3AmUG)

Philosophically we like to consider Emmo’s position in the tennis pantheon. As an amateur during a settled pro era, we have never seen a period where amateurs in any sports are better than the pros. Think about the difference between the US Amateur Olympic basketball team and the Dream Team.

As you know, this blog looks at the hard data and real history of tennis and fixes the data so people can do apples to apples comparisons of tennis quality. When head to head data is not available, we substitute other data such as common opponents or competition during different eras.

For the decade of the 1960s there is no way to rank Emmo against his peer group during that period since he did not play any of them for long periods. However, we can rank him post amateur as a professional against the same players who are about the same age. In the pro era, Emmo had a Won/Loss record of 5-34 against the top pros from 1963-1967 including Arthur Ashe who turned pro in 1969 and was 11-1 against Emmo as a pro though he lost two Amateur Australian finals to Emmo.

Roy Emerson record vs. the top pros of 1963-1967, post 1967

W/L
Rod Laver 1-14
Ken Rosewall 1-5
Pancho Gonzalez 0-1
Andres Gimeno 2-3
Arthur Ashe 1-11

Overall Record 5-34

Given this record, we would put Emerson’s highest rank among amateur / pros of the 60’s who were his age outside of the top 5.

Yet Emerson remains in the top 10 players of many “experts” who don’t know the data or the circumstance of the time or willfully choose to ignore the data. If you google Roy Emerson and top 10 players of all time, more than 240,000 results occur. Yet, Pancho Gonzalez, who won a record 8 US Pro championships in a row, is not ranked as high by many experts as Emerson.

How do you reply to someone over beers who says Roy Emerson is a top 10 player of all time? You smile, you say,

* “He was a great amateur champion”,
* “He never got past a professional grand slam quarterfinal”,
* “He was 5-34 against the best pro players of his era”,
* “If he wasn’t the best of any of his years, how could he be one of the best of all time?”

And then you drink your beer very slowly.

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.

Wimpledon Redux 2011 – The End of the Short Game part 1

Another fortnight has passed and we have crowned Novak Djokovic  Wimpledon champion.  We coined the phrase, “Wimpledon” last year to decry the end of the short (serve and volley) game and the absence for the most part of the middle game in the Wimbledon championships.  With mostly a long (baseline) game on display for Wimpledon, one third the variety i.e. no middle or short game, has earned tennis one third the fans as tennis ratings have plummeted since the 1980 glory days.  With less fans there will much less money as ESPN has announced that “Breakfast At Wimpledon” will be a pay tv affair going forward and that Wimpledon will be tape delayed on ESPN on ABC.

As we know, Wimpledon adopted the 32 seed tournament format to reduce the number of early round upsets.  Draws no longer open up as they did for 18 year old John McEnroe in 1977, who got to the semifinals of Wimbledon without facing a seed until the quarterfinals.  Television ratings soared.  McEnroe’s tv ratings throughout his career were some of the highest ever.  Instead we have this anesthized version of the game without any risk.  In the last 8 years, the first seed has faced off against the second seed in the Wimpledon final 7 times as ratings go into the abyss.  With more predictability and less game diversity, no one is watching.  

What about the tennis?  Averaging about 20 net approaches a match during the tourney, many in reaction to dropshots, Djokovic routined the slowest grass surface tournament in history.  In his own version of “No Mas”, Nadal approached the net 9 times in the final. 

Roberto Nadal???

As we reasoned last year, Djokovic may have put up a barrier to Rafael Nadal taking our all time Number 1 ranking.  Though Nadal is solidly the top player ever on clay he remains a player with only 4 fast surface grand slams.  We doubt Nadal will win another hard surface slam as there are now several players, Djokovic, Tsonga, Murray, and Del Potro who can provide a difficult match against him.  We’ll know more as we get closer to the US Open where Nadal will be the defending champion.

Djokovic is having a dream season, the sort that only John McEnroe, Mats Wilander and Roger Federer have put together, defeating opponents with overwhelming force on their way to 3 slams in one year.  Only Federer has been able to put such a season together twice against lesser competition.  But Djokovic is no spring chicken.  He started as a pro at 17 year old and has played almost 500 matches.   As a point of reference, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick haven’t won a slam since well before their 300^th career matches and Marat Safin didn’t win a slam after his 500^th match.  Bjorn Borg and Mats Wilander, two other defensive players, were the  same age (24) when they won their final slams.

Because the title went to Djokovic and he has now won his third slam, our all time great SHOTS ranking of Nadal and Federer continues to improve as we award points for wins by peers in the same era.

Nadal’s Future on Faster Surfaces

As we predicted in our last blog post, there was a lot of uncertainty around Nadal winning another Wimbledon.  Djokovic’ dominance over Nadal this year is symbolic of the inevitable downturn of 2 handed players as they get close to and pass 25 years.  Worse for tennis, they have a glut of 2 handers in their mid 20s crowding out new-comers with the likes of Tsonga, Murray, Monfils and Berdych.

As seen in the loss to Tsonga and as we predicted before the tourney and here a year ago, Federer doesn’t have the gas to win a best of 5 sets tournament any more.  His points are too long and he doesn’t have the same volume of easy points as Sampras.  When Sampras played, his typical point was a big serve of which many were unreturnable or a net rush which was 3 steps to the net plus agility.  Either way, points ended quickly.  With Federer, it’s uncertain how long any of his points will last and as a result, he becomes ragged after a second set against tough competition in the later rounds.

As for Nadal, we think any future Wimpledon wins are less likely but aren’t counting him out as the only players to win Wimpledon’s after 28 years old have been left handers, Connors and Ivanisevic.

Goodbye Williams Sisters?  Goodbye Roddick?

We also wave an early goodbye to the Williams sisters.  No individuals have contributed more to the women’s game in the last 20 years.  Though most of tennis royalty viewed them as great “athletic” talents, they were questioned early and often on their discipline and knowledge of the game’s nuance’s.  Early on they suffered the slings and bows of Martina Hingis and an inherently elitist / country club tennis environment but look at them now.

Martina Hingis Mocks Venus Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok3L5r5YxLM&feature=related

Watch the above video and Martina Hingis at the 1:19 mark taunting Venus.

In our ratings system, Serena and Venus rank 4 and 8 all time and if they hadn’t had to play each other in many slam finals, either may have been rated higher.  They’ve outlasted not just a generation entering against Steffi Graf and then Martina Hingis, but also outlasted all their peers such as Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, then another generation in Justin Henin and Kim Clijsters but an entirely different generation heralded by Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic.

The fact that they are still in the hunt when a fifth generation of tennis player plays i.e. Caroline Wosniacki, etc, shows what remarkable players they are and how different they are from their peers.  Though Sharapova and other tennis beauties take months to years off from the tour for their commercial and sponsorship endeavors, the Williams sisters are in movies, doing reality tv, pushing out a clothing line while reaching twice as many slam finals as any person who started on the tour at the same time or since they began.  All while mourning the early and unwarranted passing of a sibling.

Here’s hoping that as they retire a new generation appears on the tour with the same sort of mettle.

With a great serve, like Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick will always be a darkhorse at Wimpledon.  But his forehand is no longer dominant and his movement continues to decline.  And for the other Americans, a bright spot is Ryan Harrison, the youngster who made it to the third round.  Despite Patrick McEnroe FLUBBING another wildcard entry, this one was squandered on James Blake a first round loser, much like he squandered his Roland Garros wildcard on Tim Smyczek another first round loser rather than the younger Donald Young, Harrison played tough.  He fought through 3 rounds of qualifying and lost in his 6th match of the tourney in a 5 setter to iron-man David Ferrer.

Welcome Back Chrissie!

Another bright spot was the addition of Chris Evert to the broadcast and her chemistry with Mary Carillo proved remarkable.   Whereas the McEnroe brothers are expert at the top flight aspects of the men’s game and Carillo with Pam Shriver are technically strong, Evert really addresses championship level psychology in a way the others can’t.

Though tormented as a teen tennis angel in all white, she was anything but.  Evert was tennis’ black mambo.  A cold assassin crushing all-time greats at will.  After being subjugated by Martina Navratilova on fast surfaces, she was able to make a final grand slam push and beat Navratilova in her mid 30’s on Australian hard courts to cap off one of the greatest tennis careers of all time.

Her personal life was just as climactic dating tennis playboy, Jimmy Connors, marrying Brit John Lloyd, dumping him for skier Andy Mills and then moving onto the Shark himself, Greg Norman.  She hasn’t had a life story, it’s been a saga.  Evert’s and Connors tv ratings were sky high and they ushered in a tennis golden age.

From her father’s old barbeques at Holiday Park to the Chris Evert tennis academy, anything that is associated with Evert and tennis benefits.  Keep her on tv.

And what of Wimbledon.  We typically watch Wimpledon with a sense of mourning of the short game and the end of the serve and volley style brandished by any all time great before 2002 who won the championship more than once, including Bjorn Borg.  We’ll cover this in our Wimbledon redux – Part II

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.