Federer-Nadal legend

Federer-Nadal

Gran Slam tournaments

 

Federer and Nadal are the two best players in Gran Slam tournaments, as Nadal played more finals than Sampras. Surprisingly, they don't have the biggest winning percentage, but the difference is insignificant. See Connors-Borg description for the winning explanation.

 

Ranked: 1

Year-End Championship

See McEnroe-Lendl description for the losing explanation. See Agassi-Sampras description for the winning explanation.

 

Ranked: 2

National Representation

See McEnroe-Lendl description for the winning explanation.

 

Ranked: 1

ATP Masters 1000

They are far ahead of the others pairs in this category winning 46 times together. In 2005, when Nadal was only 19, they managed to win 8 tournaments out of 9. Simply amazing! See McEnroe-Lendl description for the winning explanation.

 

Ranked: 1

Career statistics

They only won 126 tournaments compared to the 147 of Connors-Borg, and 143 of McEnroe-Lendl. But they would probably have won 140-150 tournaments if they played during the 70s or 80s. The current level of competition is very high and physically demanding nowadays. Connors-Borg and McEnroe-Lendl played a lot of small tournaments easy to win. Federer-Nadal focused more on big events. So it's hard to say. Let's have a look to the big tournaments only for a definitive answer on this one (Gran Slam, Master, Masters 1000).

 

Connors-Borg (19-3-36.5) = 58.5

McEnroe-Lendl (13-7-37) = 57

Federer-Nadal (29-5-46) = 80

Even if I take into account the fact that Connors-Borg and McEnroe-Lendl didn't play all the big events, the difference is big. And overall Federer-Nadal are only about 1% behind in winning percentage. And as only the big tournaments matter when you compare the very best (even Masters 1000 could be left out). Federer-Nadal are clearly number 1.

Ranked: 1

Conclusion:

In every category Federer-Nadal are the best, except for the Master. The most talented player of all time pairing with the best clay-court player of all time make an all time winning team. How could it be different with such a technically gifted (Federer) and physically gifted (Nadal) players?

Ranked: 1

Agassi-Sampras legend

Agassi-Sampras

Gran Slam tournaments

The pair Agassi-Sampras won slightly more Gran Slam than the pair Connors-Borg (20 to 19). Despite of that they are behind. They appeared in less finals (23 to 26) -not taking into account the lost final when both players play the final against each other-. Their winning percentage is much lower (85.5 to 89.7). It means Agassi-Sampras had to play much more and lose much more to achieve only one more win. See McEnroe-Lendl description for more explanation why they are not last. 

 

Ranked: 3

Year-End Championship

This time they easily beat Connors-Borg, but are beaten by the others pairs. Sampras was a big game player. He won more big tournaments finals than any others big players. But it also means Lendl and Federer appeared in more finals. This is the final record for the Master for the three best players (win/runner-up): Federer (6/4), Lendl (5/4) and Sampras (5/1). As you can see, Sampras is the worst of the three. 

 

Ranked: 3

National Representation

They played in the same team for the Davis Cup and they won together in 1992. They did a bit better than Connors-Borg again. And again they did worst than the others pairs. So same ranking one more time.

Ranked: 3

ATP Masters 1000

They did very poorly in this category. And this time Sampras brings the pair down (only 11 win). In 1998 they didn't even manage to win a tournament. And in two occasions they only won 1 tournament. Logically they are last and by far.

Ranked: 4 (last)

Career statistics

All the pairs won more than 125 tournaments and have winning percentage over 85%. Except for the Agassi-Sampras pair who didn't even won 90 tournaments and reached 80% winning percentage. That says it all.

Ranked: 4 (last)

Conclusion:

In every categories they are ranked either 3rd or 4th. So the question is: Are they more 3rd or more 4th? The answer is 4th. They are behind McEnroe-Lendl because this last pair do well in every category except Gran Slam. Agassi-Sampras don't do well anywhere. It's because they were not as dominant as the others pairs. First, due to Sampras weaknesses on clay and in Masters 1000. Second, due to Agassi's erratic career playing at his best only occasionally. You cannot pretend to be among the best if you are not consistent. Talent doesn't do everything. Sampras never tried to play well on slow courts, relying a lot on his excellent serve and volley game, but... that only works on fast court.

Ranked: 4

McEnroe-Lendl legend

McEnroe-Lendl

Gran Slam tournaments

The pair McEnroe-Lendl played more finals than the pair Agassi-Sampras (24 to 23). But they only won 13 of them compared to the 20 of Agassi-Sampras. This is a very poor final winning percentage due to Lendl's multiple finals failures. Surprisingly they share exactly the same number of defeats than Agassi-Sampras (51), but are slightly behind in victories (291 to 303). Having to face stronger competition than Agassi-Sampras played against them. In the early 80s they faced Connors and Borg. And later in this decade, Wilander, Edberg and Becker.

Ranked: 4 (last)

Year-End Championship

If they are at the bottom in Gran Slams, they are first in the Master. Both did very well here. And despite Federer holding the record in this tournament, they manage to leave the pair Federer-Nadal behind. Fast indoor hard courts are Nadal's worst surface, and last tournament of the year is when Nadal physic is not responding as well as earlier in the season. So thanks Nadal!

Ranked: 1

National Representation

Tennis became an Olympic sport in 1988. So we only consider the Davis Cup here. McEnroe was a specialist of the Davis Cup, playing both single and double. Lendl managed to win it too. But it was not enough against Nadal and Spain outrageous domination in the 2000s (3 wins to 4). This time Nadal makes a difference in a more positive way.

Ranked: 2

ATP Masters 1000

They were the two best players in this category with 19 (McEnroe) and 22 (Lendl) wins during their entire career. It was before the arrival of the current Big 4 era that left them behind, with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer overtaking them. See Connors-Borg description for the draw explanation.

Ranked: 2 (draw)

Career statistics

This pair holds the record for finals played, but not for the wins. See Connors-Borg description for the draw explanation. See Federer-Nadal description for the losing explanation.

Ranked: 2 (draw)

Conclusion:

They do very well in general except in Gran Slam tournaments were they are at the bottom. But this is the most important category. In NBA it would be the NBA Final, in soccer it would be the World Cup, or the Champions League (club level). And you really cannot afford to do poorly in the most important and prestigious competition. And when you compare the greatest in a sport, it's just what you focus on. So they did poorly where they shouldn't, too bad. They finish behind Connors-Borg as number 3.

Ranked: 3

Connors-Borg legend

Connors-Borg

Gran Slam tournaments

The pair Connors-Borg has the best winning percentage in this category (89.7 against 89.6 for the pair Federer-Nadal). But the difference is so insignificant that I'll look to others number for more meaning. They only won 19 slams compared to the record 29 (Federer-Nadal). At the same time they lost more finals (7 against 4) when none of them won the slam. They also won less than 109 games than Federer-Nadal (280 against 389). Even if I take into consideration they hardly ever played the Australian Open. And that Borg retired at the end of season 1981, so not playing in the 1982-83 slams. I still consider they are behind de pair Federer-Nadal. It's obviously easier to maintain a high winniner percentage if you play much less.

Ranked: 2

Year-End Championship

They are the worst pair in this category, winning only 3 times. They also missed more than the other pairs, because of Borg retirement. And none of them played in 1976. They missed altogether 8 editions (40%) over 20 which is a lot and explains why they score so low. 

 

Ranked: 4 (last)

National Representation

Tennis became an Olympic sport in 1988. So we only consider the Davis Cup here. And this pair didn't do well, winning only twice. But as for the master they missed many editions, especially for Connors not really interested in competing for his country. And Borg lacked support with Sweden, being the only top player for his country.

Ranked: 4 (last)

ATP Masters 1000

At the time they were playing, the tournaments listed for Connors-Borg corresponded to the current masters 1000 category. Then it was reduced to 7 (1976-77), then finally 9 in 1979. But at this time the players didn't play them all. They played in different circuits (North America or Europe). Connors played mostly in North America, and Borg played more in Europe. Why do they get 36.5 wins? It's because the Monte-Carlo final Connors played against Vilas was never completed for bad climatic conditions. So I give a half-win for this one. They get almost the same result as the pair McEnroe-Lendl (36.5 against 37). But as Borg didn't play in 1982-83 they could have won more. But maybe not as Borg was burned out and simply unable to compete for mental and motivation issues. So maybe better give both teams a draw.

Ranked: 2 (draw)

Career statistics

This pair won a record 147 tournaments, but they don't hold the record for finals played. This record is owned by McEnroe-Lendl (201 against 210). To separate them I decided to use ATP points distribution (100% winner, 60% runner-up)

Connors-Borg (147-54) = 147+(54 x 60%) = 179.4

McEnroe-Lendl (143-67) = 143 +(67 x 60%) = 183.2

Connors-Borg lose slightly to McEnroe-Lendl: 98% (179.4/183.2)

Wins per season are not available for Borg, but we have his career winning percentage (82.7%) and I made an estimation as only 1 season (1973) was left out. Being ranked 18 in 1973 (ranked 18 typically have 60-66% wins). Combined to Connors win% the pair would score about the same as McEnroe-Lendl (86.4%). But as it's just an estimate the previous titles calculation (179.4 to 183.2) doesn't give McEnroe-Lendl a big enough advantage to win the contest. So a draw is fair for both teams. See Federer-Nadal description for the losing explanation.

Ranked: 2 (draw)

Conclusion:

If in "Career statistics" they are ranked 1 and never top the rankings in the others categories. It just means they won many small tournaments. They are probably the second best team of this study for being ranked 2 in "Gran Slam tournament" and ranked 1 (draw) in "Career statistics".
 

Ranked: 2

Nadal-Djokovic

Federer-Nadal

Agassi-Sampras