Talk:Open Era tennis records – Men's singles/Archive 2

Consecutive records
The criteria set for consecutive records does not necessarily reflect official sources earlier today I changed Rod Lavers 27 consecutive grand slam match wins to 29 per official sources here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/djokovic-ward-wimbledon-2016-monday before Novak Djokovic claimed the record. I did not set the criteria that excludes players from having officially recognized statistics altered by Wikipedia editors in order to play down their significance. It is certainly not our job either to remove official sources we report verifiable facts and cite accordingly we do not remove those sources because certain editors personally disagree them. I have added a note for readers that explains that the ATP acknowledges Laver's previous consecutive record is regardless whether a player skips a tournament or not and not defined by editors here.--Navops47 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, our All-time tennis records – men's singles article has it sectioned off with a note that says "Streaks can be across non-consecutive events." Why is the Open Era chart different? We don't specify for the ladies Open Era at Open Era tennis records – women's singles, nor at the All-time tennis records – women's singles (which seems to be woefully missing Helen Wills massive streak). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This topic of consecutive event vs. non-consecutive event streaks has already been discussed several times here on the talkpage above. Clearly the ATP article is non-consecutive. This page has had the stated criteria of consecutive streaks for a while now, and I don't see why it would need to be identical to the All-time page. That one is more Slam/Major heavy and has both criterias listed. I'm reverting it back to the way it was and the consensus that has been established for several years already. -Testpored (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't discussed extensively above as you put it rather one editors personal campaign and as I stated our job is to cite verifiable facts and I provided THE official source recognizing his 29 match streak as 'Consecutive' there is no mention in that source defining criteria differently (other than what unqualified editors have stipulated here), its not for you to re-write former official records. So I am reverting back until we reach consensus.--Navops47 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be the same on both our articles for consistency sake. And if the other has both criteria listed, so should this one. All four of these articles should be consistent on this issue. By the way, I can't seem to zero in on the section that has "both criteria listed" in the All-time tennis records – men's singles article. I only see the match chart that has "Streaks can be across non-consecutive events." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your right but remember I took the open era article and used that as a template to create the All Time article and I cannot recall if that was the wording I can only assume that it was unless another editor has since added to the AT page or if it was originally on this page and was removed either way the ATP recognized Laver's 29 matches as consecutive my issue is state the facts per sources as found here Novak Djokovic breaks a Rod Laver record with second-round victory, “The record I managed to break today was one of the better ones,” Djokovic said after moving ahead of Rod Laver".: .--Navops47 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If we have two charts, one with only consecutive majors and one that encompasses non-consecutive majors, Laver's 69-70 run will not be in both tables. It'll be in the non-consecutive table. The ATP and WTA make errors all the time, but anyone can see he did it in non-consecutive majors. I'm sure we can find a source that contradicts the ATP that Laver's record was done in consecutive majors, and then we'd have a quandary anyways. It is probably best to have both tables so we can see the records for both types. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing how there already is the non-consec Finals won table (as noted) it probably is clearest to have two sub-sections for consec and non-consec event streaks. I'll start the non-consec one now. -Testpored (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you much appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Total Titles Graphic
Hello I made this graphic. My question is if is OK when I add this at this page and the article about Tennis players with most titles in the Open Era. When I have time I'll also great the doubles and the women singles and doubles. Improvements are welcome. --Malo95 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Malo95/Tennis titles per player comparison


 * Thanks for asking about this on the talkpage. Frankly, I don't think your chart belongs in either article. For this page, the data is already clearly presented in the regular tables. (Except for your "high/low categories" which are a new thing you made that is not at all explained and thus wouldn't belong anyways.) For the other page, the main focus is total combined titles, not just singles.  -Testpored (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Current streaks and cut-off points
Does this page include all current streaks, or is there a cut-off point? I'm asking because there are several active consecutive streaks not shown and the cut-off point is not made clear, so it is not possible to tell if someone is about to break into the top 10 (or whatever is shown here). I think Andy Murray has the potential to move into some of these lists if he gets to the quarters or better at the US Open (e.g. if he gets to the final, will join the 'all 4 finals list' in Calendar year achievements). Also Grand Slam tournaments: Consecutive records in the 'Consecutive per year totals' I think Djokovic is on a 2-year streak for '2+ titles', on a 6-year streak for '1+ titles' and on a 7-year streak for '1+ finals'. Is this not worth including? At what point should such streaks appear in these records articles and should the cut-off points be clearly defined in each section? Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct if Murray reaches the US Open final he will join a very select group who made all 4 major finals in a calendar year if he goes out in the USO SF it will be his 2nd all 4 Major SF's in a calendar year and at the QF stage it would be his 4th I think the cut off was to keep the list short otherwise they would be too long they were originally Top 5 not Top 2 or Top 3 e.g. not that many players achieve 2+ GS titles for 2 years Lendl did it (1986-87) but he's not included Connors didn't do it, neither did Agassi, Becker, Rosewall, Nastase, Vilas or Wilander and so on I see no problem to include Lendl and Djokovic streaks and 6 years with 1+ title should be included IMO.--Navops47 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also calculated that a run to the final at the US Open by Andy Murray would get him into the top 10 list (eclipsing John Newcombe) for the 'Match record' percentage table overall for the Open Era. If he won, he would move above Ivan Lendl(!). But that is maybe getting too far ahead of things. It did make me wonder whether any sites reliably report the peak 'Match record' percentage (it is well known that Bjorn Borg's is inflated by retiring at, or near, his peak). Most players' percentages decline from their peak as they stop winning or making deep runs to the final stages of the Slams. FWIW, the only active streaks of 3 for the Finals, QFs and SFs of the Slams are the current streak of 3 by Andy Murray and the streak of 3 by Berdych in the QFs. I did also look at the number of times players had got to three finals in a row, and that is actually relatively common (I'll put that in a new talk page section). Finally, Andy Murray has been about 349 weeks altogether in the top 4, but calculating that is difficult - are there sites that do these ranking record calculations reliably? Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have added the Lendl and Djokovic 2 titles in 2 years streaks, and Djokovic's 6 years with 1+ title. Am still checking the consecutive run of 1+ finals in 7 years, as others have similar claims. FWIW, the longest ongoing active streak relating to reaching at least one Grand Slam SF in consecutive years is Federer's still active run of fourteen (14!) years from 2003-16. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Roger Federer has now extended his run of reaching at least one Grand Slam semi-final or better in consecutive years to 15 years. Is this worth noting anywhere? I will ask at the talk page of the player's article as well. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Roger Federer's run of reaching at least one Grand Slam semi-final or better in consecutive years is now 16 years. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think consec years reaching SF should be listed. The consec. year category should remain restricted to the 1-3 titles and 1+ final the way it is. -Testpored (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Still worth tracking on this talk page. At some point, a reliable source will pick up on it, especially if he keeps going. Was reading a sports column today that talked of a potential changing of the guard, with Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all injured in some way, and Wawrinka "long past his best" (which I thought was a bit unfair) and a younger generation coming through (the generation after the generation that was supposed to take over!), and then the column threw in the delightful phrase: "Federer marches on, otherworldly...". I think the only question is whether he will choose to go out on top, or just keep on going (and whether injury or a young gun will down him). Ahem. Sorry. Will stop there! Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Career wins on Grass
In recent days there have been several attempts to change the All tournament Grass career wins list to be the same as the ATP's listing. However, there was a note at the top of the list that states "ATP's grass stats include pre-Open Era data and not all data from early Open Era. Thus they can't be copied verbatim" which was used as the rationale for reverting these changes (this diff is one example).

I appreciate user:Н_Француз for abiding by the note with repeated reverts. But we can't have a note like that on this page unless there are specific inline notes explaining individual differences. After all, the data of wikipedia articles needs to be sourced properly, as stated in the lede. A good example is the Stan Smith entry, which specifically notes why the listing here is different from the source.

So I've changed the data per the ATP's changes. (It's sometimes a hassle when the ATP changes their data, but that's the way it is. They've made a number of changes in the years I've been editing this page.) -Testpored2 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * However, we are now lying to our readers. Newcomb does not have 136 Open Era wins on grass. The link you provided to the ATP says nothing about Open Era records, it simply says a player has won a certain amount of grass court events. This article is ONLY about the Open Era, not pre-Open Era. What should happen is there should be an inline link to the reason for the difference from the ATP, but we can't use those records on that ATP page because it says nothing about the Open Era. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually went and counted the Newcombe wins on grass at the ATP website, and he does have 136 wins in the Open Era. Maybe they have done a better job in screening. I'll have to check Connors numbers a little later, but i will reserve judgement and revert myself until I see otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Fyunck(click) Nice of you to count his wins. Were all of those wins in open tournaments? I don't know, maybe there were some tournaments, during the first couple years, that resisted the change and were still banning professionals? If Newcombe or Connors had some wins that were not in Open tournaments (Connors spent 2 years on the amateur circuit apparently), there could simply be a note below the table that mentions their overall total. Н Француз (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That absolutely doesn't matter. These are Open Era records, not Open Tournament records. So pretty much starting with the French Open of '68. Heck, even in the 70s some tournaments were not open to all unless you played on a specific tour. The events I counted were the ATP events we count today. I didn't count Connors yet since it takes a long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, user:Fyunck(click). This article now needs update after Federer's latest game(s), but I don't know if 1 or 2 games need to be added. I always had the impression that Jimmy Connors did a lot of tournaments with no real competition, that today would be "Challengers" or even "Futures", to get some frequent and "easy" income. My impression is in part due to the fact that with the highest number of matches won he only won 83 games against top 10 opponents, and that puts him at the 10th rank, with just half of Nadal's total. Since you're digging into this matter, do you have any opinion? Н Француз (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But you're singling out Connors. All the players of his era had the same opportunity. As for futures or challengers, he certainly wouldn't have played them for extra income as they would have paid dirt then as now. But the point system in place for ranking players allowed him to pile on all the smaller events to pick up points used to determine year-end No. 1. That's why he played the smaller events. I'm not sure what level they would be considered today... 250 level or International series. I think the main point being made here is that we use the ATP website numbers unless given a good reason not to. The ATP website has missed tournaments in the past, added wins from before the open era, etc.. If you can source that the ATP did so in a particular case, and can link to the error, then we change it with a source as to why. Remember, we used to have three categories instead of two. Now we have Open Era and All-time records. We used to also have ATP records since the ATP didn't even exist until late in 1972. As the ATP started talking more and more of Open Era records vs ATP records, we at wikipedia merged those two categories. As a rule, I never really liked Open Era records... All-time records work better for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also just checked and counted all Connors victories on grass per the ATP site. His records start in 1970 so no problem with Open Era. Three of his listed losses on grass were walkovers so I scrapped those losses. The total is 174–34, just as the ATP site claims. It's possible he has "more" wins/losses on grass, if there are events the ATP missed, but he doesn't have less. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you user:Fyunck(click) for the additional info. Part of my confusion, I guess, was that I didn't realize that the USA were ultra-dominant in Connors' time. The earliest ATP ranking I can see is from May 2nd 1983, and there were 23 Americans in the top 50. There are now 4 Americans in the top 50 (France and Spain have 6 each, Germany has 5). So of course the proportion of important tournaments in the US was higher, and that explains why Connors won such a large proportion of tournaments in US tournaments that do not exist any more. What it does not explain, however, is how Connors only had to win, on average, fewer than 8 matches against a top 10 player for every 10 tournaments he won, whereas Federer stands at nearly 22 top 10 win for every 10 tournaments won. That's almost 3 times fewer! Where were the top players hiding when Connors was playing a tournament? All in the other half of the draw? Or just absent? Why? About the money: today it's not possible for a small tournament to attract a top player, because the top players expect to make at leaast 100,000 USD each time they're successful in a tournament (~100,000 USD is the current pay for a ATP 500 semi-finalist, for example). However in 1973 the US open winner (Newcombe) took just 25,000 USD, that's 25 times less than now in real money. The best players could only hope of getting a few thousands of dollars in a very good week, and dream of the 20,000+ prize once a year (the other Grand slam tournaments were less generous, with Wimbledon prize being just 5000£ in 1973). So it probably was possible for many entrepreneurs to set up a little tournament to advertise their business, and make it profitable by paying a superstar a couple thousand dollars to come so that it becomes a big event (or 2 superstars, hoping they'll meet in the final). Today, tournaments still offer money to superstars on top of the prize money, it just became much more expensive. I remember that Federer participated to the Dubai open because he had a contract with them, and stopped going when the contract ended (it's now the least popular of the ATP 500, it seems). So my idea was that in the 1970s and early 1980s, top players would gladly participate to many tournaments that had a significantly lower level than current ATP 500 tournaments (the 10 latest ATP 500 tournaments had 31 top 10 players participating), because a week with 2000 dollars in was a good week even for the best players. So a possible explanation could be there were many tournaments each attracting one or 2 superstars being held simultaneously, which meant a top player would have to win at most one game against another top player to get the trophy. In any case, the 83 top-10 wins of Connors (fewer than Murray) seems to indicate a generally lower level of competition that could require an explanation. Н Француз (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that you're trying too hard to equate pro tennis of the 1970s to today. The main differences: less prize money (even adjusted for inflation) though they still were considered well-compensated for the time, competing tours (ITF and WCT were the two biggest), and of course racket technology. But there are plenty of similarities -- after all, the rules of the game have changed very little and the objective is exactly the same. So it's interesting to compare the achievements of the best players throughout the Era. -Testpored2 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking along the same lines... In the 1970's tennis events were simply different than today, just as the 20s were far different than the 70s. I feel there are more high quality players today, though no more superstars. I do think the game has changed a great deal. It's nothing like what I watched as a kid. Baseball doesn't allow aluminum bats in the pros, which would have skewed all the old records. They lowered the pitching mound but at least they still use the same field material. My guess is a baseball player today could play with the old materials. Not so much tennis. The court material has changed (little grass, no wood, no canvas) and they've slowed down the grass and hard courts. Rackets aren't even on the same planet. There was a huge change in the late 40s when laminated wood rackets were invented, but they were the same size and still wood. In the late 70s graphite was changing the game but the rackets were the same size and gut strings still common. Now they are space age material, gigantic, incredible string material and shape, etc... Today's players couldn't play with the old rackets if they tried (and they have).


 * Today's players don't have to keep a foot on the ground while serving either, like they did in the early 60s. I think the technology and court changes have done the most in raising up the average player's game to be able to compete against the best. It's a great equalizer. It's makes for some incredible rallies, but also gives most matches a feel of sameness or lack of variety. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Open Era
Does Open Era only apply to professional tennis or also to amateur tennis? And how does ranking affect both? Was not there ranking in each before the open era?2605:E000:9149:8300:F01A:79CE:D587:A3B8 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Open Era - professional records since 1968. There was no amateur after 1968. For records that encompass all of tennis history see All-time tennis records – men's singles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Where has rankings data gone? Not here or on ATP tour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.73.73 (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

GS calendar year Match record
I'd like to trim the GS Cal. year Match record table to just be 3+ titles. The current criteria of "minimum 20 wins, maximum 1 loss" includes the 2 titles + 1 final guys (Borg twice, Lendl, McEnroe) but that's somewhat inconsistent with the rest of the section with its "All 4 ..." criterias. (The only guy who gets "screwed" in this case would be Lendl, due to only 3 majors held in 1986. But Borg and Mac chose to skip Australia, which is quite understandable given what low status and money it had at the time.) Thoughts? -Testpored (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again now, this is a good change because Federer's 2009 is not included: he won 2 titles but lost 2 finals. This is of course a more impressive achievement than 2 titles + 1 final + no 4th event, so I went ahead and made the change to "minimum 3 titles". -Testpored (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of this particular statistic, as it is basically another list of players with 2+ or 3+ titles in a season (the first two tables of the section), with small distinctions based on how they did in the remaining slam(s). Then again, with so many seasonal tables, this one is probably worthy of inclusion. I'm ok with the new limit you applied, also because there would be 13 players listed otherwise, versus 9 now. Gap9551 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming the change. There's value in the nuance of how well each man fared match-wise, along with historical indicators like "oh, Connors only played 3 majors in 1974". Hopefully it piques readers' curiosity to learn more of the game's history. -Testpored (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * True, and the all-time article has a list with all records down to 20-1. Gap9551 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I updated this table to list the players who earned the most "modern ranking points" in a given season. I believe this is the best way to convey what this table is trying to show, which is who had the most successful season. As a result, players do not fall in the rankings because they had a walkover, such as Federer in 2007 and Djokovic in 2011.  This feels as a good compromise between listing based on win percentage, total wins, minimum 3 titles, maximum 1 loss, no show at 4th event, etc. //29 April 2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.108.245 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Totals incorrect
Looks like table is saying Nadal and Federer have 21 grand slam titles - this should be 20? Scampbell82 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

5+ titles
You've done 5 + titles as cons years but not put that its consecutive years in the heading. I also don't think it should be consecutive years, just total years of 5+titles - like you've done for 10+ titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:33A2:701:880E:146A:8BC4:9837 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Big Titles
Hello everyone,

Wouldn't it be better if you have a 'simple list' at the section Big Titles. Just like you have at the Masters section. And then a link to the more specific information. Now you only have 2 links underneath Big Titles.

Sportfan82 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Win-loss without Federer
It seems win loss is missing Federer at the top. Please confirm. 240A:61:53:8BA:D5AD:2CD7:488B:D706 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wins vs. Top 1
We should have the data for most wins vs. top 1 ranked rival. (If the player is holding the No. 1 spot, the best ranked rival would be No.2). I'll look for it, any help is welcome. Tommy Boy (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)