Jump to content

Men's Tennis - Who Is The Greatest Of All Time?


Steve R.

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

I got caught up in this article, and realized it should probably be here:

"No One Better than Novak Djokovic at his Best: Andre Agassi" on timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Andre has an interesting perspective. As a huge Sampras/ Fed guy this bums me out, but I can see his point. Thought about waking up early to watch the Australian open final but didn't as I don't care for Djokovic or Nadal. Then had to go back and watch once I saw the scores. What a systemic beat-down! Never see Nadal get handled like that. Makes me think Andre has a solid point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DaveO said:

I'm not enough of a fan or tennis historian to name all these players, but per the blurb I saw on my FB feed all of the men in this photo were at one time ranked #1 in mens tennis.   Can you name them?736779632_Number1rankedtennisplayers.jpg.707c21520a23eeb1b769c7d1c2f9271e.jpg

Left to right: Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, Ilie Nastase, Gustavo Kuerten, Novak Djokovic, John McEnroe, Rafael Nadal, Bjorn Borg, Roger Federer, Jim Courier, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt

Interestingly, just yesterday I looked up Marcelo Rios - he’s the only player in the open era to be ranked #1 without ever having won a Grand Slam.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

Left to right: Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, Ilie Nastase, Gustavo Kuerten, Novak Djokovic, John McEnroe, Rafael Nadal, Bjorn Borg, Roger Federer, Jim Courier, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt

Interestingly, just yesterday I looked up Marcelo Rios - he’s the only player in the open era to be ranked #1 without ever having won a Grand Slam.

I know that for at least part of one year Boris Becker was ranked #1 in tennis.  He isn't in the photo.  How many other pro's going back to the earliest #1 in the photo (I'm guessing Conners or Nastase) were ranked #1 at some point and are not in the photo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2019 at 7:02 PM, DaveO said:

I know that for at least part of one year Boris Becker was ranked #1 in tennis.  He isn't in the photo.  How many other pro's going back to the earliest #1 in the photo (I'm guessing Conners or Nastase) were ranked #1 at some point and are not in the photo?

Nastase is the earliest #1 in the photo; Laver is the first #1 in the Open Era (1968 and after) - I think the only one on this list no longer alive is Ashe, and that was just due to terrible luck [DaveO's reply here] - note that the list is for year-end #1s only; people like Rios, Safin, etc. were #1 mid-year, as the rankings were updated on a rolling basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tweaked said:

looks like Djokovic is playing now (8am) followed by Federer v Nadal, with an estimated start time of 10:30am.

Watching Djokovic serve at 3-1 in the first set, it seems almost unfathomable that Roberto Bautista Agut beat him twice this year on outdoor hard court. That said, despite the score, Djokovic is missing a lot of shots he normally doesn't miss.

Want to know what's cool? Djokovic lives - for the moment - in Monte Carlo (gee, I wonder why?) - 2 1/2-years ago, I ate at the restaurant he opened there. Some interesting details about it (and him) here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Steve R. said:

Still watching?  Can you now see how this guy can beat him?  I’d be surprised if Djokovic doesn’t win, but he better figure out a way to keep up his rhythm & concentration over the long haul in order to do it.

Yep, it's 1-all in sets now - Bautista Agut upped his game in a big way, and Djokovic is playing as poorly as I've seen him play in quite awhile. It's interesting that Djokovic doesn't seem to match up well with Bautista Agut: Djokovic's flat baseline game plays right into Bautista Agut's strengths; Nadal's topspin would give him more trouble, and Federer's net threat would also get him out of rhythm, but Djokovic's ball machine-like style isn't hurting Bautista Agut (who is hitting a *lot* of short balls, but Djoker refuses to come into net).

These two look very different, but they're actually playing a very similar style of tennis, and Bautista Agut seems perfectly willing to go toe-to-toe with Djokovic, hustling after shots, and getting a lot of balls in play - I'm certain Djokovic is hitting the ball deeper into the court, but he's not taking advantage of it.

Should Djokovic lose this match (and it's currently on-serve in the third set), the next match will essentially be the finals, and will take on an even greater importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I’ll be surprised if Djokovic doesn’t win.  And, unfortunately (since I’m a Federer fan and like Nadal just fine), I think that Djokovic comes out of this stronger, having had to play real grass court tennis today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

Now all Federer needs to do is beat Djokovic.

Glad I don't have any heart problems. 

So Sunday Federer has to take on still ANOTHER all time great--Djokovic.  OY

But wait-Djoker also has to take on an all TIME GREAT.

Looking forward to the match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Steve R. said:

Interesting.  Am I to infer that you closely correlate Grand Slam titles with the GOAT designation?

Well. Ever since Pete Sampras went on a mission to surpass Roy Emerson's record, that has become the benchmark of "greatness." The Hersch would stubbornly disagree if he were still here, but it's true that there's a definite pre-Sampras and post-Sampras measuring stick in the mainstream tennis media. 

Do I think Margaret Court is Serena Williams' equal because they each have 23 Grand Slam singles titles? *Hell no*.

And I think Rod Laver would still be ahead of Roger Federer, had he been eligible in the amateur-only years - he has 11; he was ineligible for 20 more - if he'd won half of those (and I think he would have, because he was healthy and in his prime), he'd be the Babe Ruth of tennis, if he isn't already.

Of course, if they'd started the Live Ball Era in 1915 instead of 1920, Babe Ruth would never have pitched, and he'd have 850 home runs (amazingly, that might have tarnished his legend, since we'd never have known about his superb pitching statistics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.  I wasn’t really going after #s of Grand Slams being more important, but unattainable for others (like Laver).  I was more wondering why your “Race To Be The GOAT” title wasn’t followed by more than one graph (comparing Grand Slams won), like one of weeks ranked as #1, record/titles in secondary tournaments, # of titles on different surfaces, etc.  Not asking you to do the research.... just suggesting that stats other than Grand Slam titles would go into my definition of the GOAT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Djokovic struggles mightily to hold serve at 1-2 in the first set, it's obvious that Federer has caught him off-guard by hitting that damnable, low, slicing backhand to him.

---

ETA: So, as Djokovic prepares to serve at 5-6 in the first set, without any breaks, I ask myself the same question as I did when I saw Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, and Pete Sampras, but this time *I really mean it* ... how will tennis possibly achieve a higher level than this?

One time, Jon Karl and I went to the finals of the DC tournament, and saw Andre Agassi barely defeat Yevgeny Kafelnikov - I distinctly remember saying to him that we'd perhaps just seen the finest tennis ever played, and he agreed.

I think players are up against human limits at this point.

As I type this sentence, both players are on-serve in the first-set tiebreaker. We may need Anton Chigurh to come toss a coin - this is ridiculous.

---

ETA: Djokovic just won the first set - the forehand miss by Federer when he was up 3-5 in the tiebreaker was enormous - he would have had two serves of his own being up 6-3. At this point, I don't see Federer being able to come back and win three sets against the younger Djokovic.

---

ETA: Federer just went up 4-0 in the second set, and Djokovic looks dejected and exhausted - his energy level has plummeted, and he needs some adrenaline, or something ... things are going to be very interesting.

---

ETA: Wow. Federer totally guessed which side Djokovic was going to, in order to go up 8-7 in the fifth set.

---

ETA: How on earth did Djokovic break Federer to tie it at 8-8?!

---

ETA: Greatest match in history?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over 50 years of watching tennis & I have never seen a better match.  As aFederer fan, it will take a while for me to get over him unsuccessfully serving at double match point - so damn close to winning another major - but all credit to Djokovic for hanging in there and breaking.   They are both truly great players in every way.  I just wish that I could like Djokovic more.  But I don’t.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a thought I've never heard of anyone proposing before:

When all is said and done, if I was forced to bet at gunpoint, I would put my money on Djokovic to come out on top in terms of "Number of Grand Slam Singles Championships Won."

Nevertheless, it's highly unlikely - but not impossible - that all 3 of the Big 3 could retire with the exact same number, perhaps 20 or 21. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head!

I had an ever-so-slight preference for Djokovic in yesterday's Wimbledon final; I'm going to be pulling hard for Federer in the U.S. Open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2019 at 1:57 PM, DonRocks said:

Here's a thought I've never heard of anyone proposing before:

When all is said and done, if I was forced to bet at gunpoint, I would put my money on Djokovic to come out on top in terms of "Number of Grand Slam Singles Championships Won."

Nevertheless, it's highly unlikely - but not impossible - that all 3 of the Big 3 could retire with the exact same number, perhaps 20 or 21. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head!

I had an ever-so-slight preference for Djokovic in yesterday's Wimbledon final; I'm going to be pulling hard for Federer in the U.S. Open.

For those who consider "Number of Major Singles Titles" to be the benchmark in determining the GOAT:

"Rafael Nadal's Decision To Miss Wimbledon, Olympics, Part of Larger Gambit To Prolong Career" by Steve Tignor on tennis.com

I'm not one of these people, but it's impossible to deny that the Big 3 are surely the three-greatest men's singles players in history, on absolute terms. It's also becoming easier to see how Djokovic (19 Majors) will slide past both Federer (20) and Nadal (20) as the two elder statesmen are now skipping tournaments in order to prolong their careers. For awhile, it seemed like the reign of the Big 3 would never end, but it's ending - or, at least, it will end when Djokovic steps down, probably in a few years: Nole is going to find it very, very quiet at the top if he has 21+ Majors, and Federer and Nadal have both retired.

Although it seems like "20+ Majors" is a number that may never be reached again, I suggest that it's since Pete Sampras when that statistic became important, and the Big 3 have divied up (currently) 59 Majors amongst themselves - sometime in the future, when there's one dominant player instead of three, it's easy to see someone getting 30.

One thing that has always favored Djokovic that nobody ever mentions: Nadal is the King of Clay, Federer is the King of Grass, but 2 out of the 4 Grand Slams are on Djokovic's favorite surface, hard court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 8:08 PM, Steve R. said:

Over 50 years of watching tennis & I have never seen a better match.  As aFederer fan, it will take a while for me to get over him unsuccessfully serving at double match point - so damn close to winning another major - but all credit to Djokovic for hanging in there and breaking.   They are both truly great players in every way.  I just wish that I could like Djokovic more.  But I don’t.

Djokovic is really annoying me.  I just don't want him to be this good.  He actually seemed to wear Nadal down in the French semis (another of the greatest matches I've seen) and then came from 2 sets down to calmly win the finals.  It would be nice for Federer to win Wimbledon and I wouldn't mind if Djokovic lost an early rounder.  It would also be nice if I lost 50lbs overnight and grew a full head of hair.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 11:13 PM, Steve R. said:

Djokovic is really annoying me.  I just don't want him to be this good.  He actually seemed to wear Nadal down in the French semis (another of the greatest matches I've seen) and then came from 2 sets down to calmly win the finals.  It would be nice for Federer to win Wimbledon and I wouldn't mind if Djokovic lost an early rounder.  It would also be nice if I lost 50lbs overnight and grew a full head of hair.

Timing has meant a lot also - Federer came first, then Nadal stymied Federer. Both men are now worn down - Federer mostly by age, and Nadal by his extreme style of playing. Djokovic is not only a bit younger, but also seems built for longevity with both his rivals now at the end of their careers. 

Why *not* Djokovic? I love all three of these guys, and am content for history to take me wherever it may lead.

Again, I must emphasize the fact that 2 out of the 4 Grand Slams are on Djokovic's favorite surface.

It's not impossible that the U.S. Open will have three 20-Grand Slam winners playing (and this doesn't even include Serena).

I think it's so cool that I dined at Djokovic's (now-closed) restaurant in Monaco, Eqvita, almost surely conceived so he could fine-dine outside his doorstep with raw, vegan, gluten-free cuisine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This US Open has been interesting on a lot of levels, not least of which is that Djokovic is going to win and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Really bums me out.

Solid showing by Francis and Reilly Opelka though, so some reason to hope for the future.

Very distressing that Felix A-A is now coached by Uncle Tony. Not looking forward to seeing his beautiful, nuanced game changed and having to listen to him explain how he added 20 lbs of muscle a year from now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Keithstg said:

Because I’m not a fan? Pretty much as simple as that.

Fair enough!

For the record, I’m a *huge* fan of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - pretty much equally.

That said, you’ll *never* hear me say who’s the “greatest ever” based on the total number of majors (*). That’s a new “thing” that started with Sampras in the late 1990s.

(*) Take away any one of the Big 3, and one of the other two would have 30 majors. It isn’t inconceivable that a single dominant player (think: Lance Armstrong) might have 40 before 2050.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 12:18 AM, DonRocks said:

For the record, I’m a *huge* fan of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - pretty much equally.

This still the case? Novak is, and has been, a bad guy. ETA: not specifically talking about his personal decision re: vaccination, but rather his actions after being infected for the second time, and near total disregard for Australian policy....combined with all the other nonsense over the past 24 months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Keithstg said:

This still the case? Novak is, and has been, a bad guy. ETA: not specifically talking about his personal decision re: vaccination, but rather his actions after being infected for the second time, and near total disregard for Australian policy....combined with all the other nonsense over the past 24 months.

Every time you think this story has reached its nadir of insanity, Djokovic hands over his beer one more time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Keithstg said:

This still the case? Novak is, and has been, a bad guy. ETA: not specifically talking about his personal decision re: vaccination, but rather his actions after being infected for the second time, and near total disregard for Australian policy....combined with all the other nonsense over the past 24 months.

We live in tough times for "fandom".  I really wish that I could separate his all too public craziness/personality from his ability to play great tennis, but I cant.  I have the same wish vis a vis Michael Jackson's music, Mel Gibson's acting, Mario Batali's restaurants & Woody Allen's movies.  On the one hand, I'm glad that we now see more than 2 dimensional characters but, on the other, I really wish I didn't see so much of the person behind the curtain.  Oh well. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he hadn't posted on social media that he had received a medical exemption, would anyone have noticed?  Perhaps questions would have eventually been asked since he has been outspoken about getting vaccinated.  

But it seems to me the bravado of that IG post is what led to the double fault (and yes I had to 😁)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 9:14 PM, Tweaked said:

If he hadn't posted on social media that he had received a medical exemption, would anyone have noticed?  Perhaps questions would have eventually been asked since he has been outspoken about getting vaccinated.  

But it seems to me the bravado of that IG post is what led to the double fault (and yes I had to 😁)

Agreed. Also peak Novak “I’m uncomfortable that all the attention has been focused on me” - while causing said attention. Would have been interesting to see the crowds reaction. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Keithstg said:

Agreed. Also peak Novak “I’m uncomfortable that all the attention has been focused on me” - while causing said attention. Would have been interesting to see the crowds reaction. 

Apparently there is a small but vocal Serbian ex-pat community in Melbourne who show up for all his matches.  He would have had some support.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tweaked said:

Apparently there is a small but vocal Serbian ex-pat community in Melbourne who show up for all his matches.  He would have had some support.  

Of course, but the prospect of a tennis player, let alone the best in the world, being booed has been unthinkable over the last twenty odd years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 10:42 AM, Keithstg said:

This still the case? Novak is, and has been, a bad guy. ETA: not specifically talking about his personal decision re: vaccination, but rather his actions after being infected for the second time, and near total disregard for Australian policy....combined with all the other nonsense over the past 24 months.

On 1/14/2022 at 1:02 PM, zgast said:

Every time you think this story has reached its nadir of insanity, Djokovic hands over his beer one more time.

On 1/14/2022 at 8:59 PM, Steve R. said:

We live in tough times for "fandom".  I really wish that I could separate his all too public craziness/personality from his ability to play great tennis, but I cant.  I have the same wish vis a vis Michael Jackson's music, Mel Gibson's acting, Mario Batali's restaurants & Woody Allen's movies.  On the one hand, I'm glad that we now see more than 2 dimensional characters but, on the other, I really wish I didn't see so much of the person behind the curtain.  Oh well. 

On 1/14/2022 at 9:14 PM, Tweaked said:

If he hadn't posted on social media that he had received a medical exemption, would anyone have noticed?  Perhaps questions would have eventually been asked since he has been outspoken about getting vaccinated.  

But it seems to me the bravado of that IG post is what led to the double fault (and yes I had to 😁)

On 1/16/2022 at 8:18 AM, Keithstg said:

Agreed. Also peak Novak “I’m uncomfortable that all the attention has been focused on me” - while causing said attention. Would have been interesting to see the crowds reaction. 

On 1/16/2022 at 12:49 PM, Tweaked said:

Apparently there is a small but vocal Serbian ex-pat community in Melbourne who show up for all his matches.  He would have had some support.  

On 1/16/2022 at 1:26 PM, Keithstg said:

Of course, but the prospect of a tennis player, let alone the best in the world, being booed has been unthinkable over the last twenty odd years. 

On 1/17/2022 at 12:03 PM, Steve R. said:

Well, there was Medvedev, but he decided to leave the Dark Side.  Hope his career goes better than Kylo Ren's did. 

Is this the time where your humble moderator is supposed to chime in with something intelligent to say?

I have nothing. Although I don't think Djokovic's recent actions should affect peoples' judgment about who is the GOAT, it just might in the short term (and let's not forget: Between the 2020 US Open (when he accidentally hit the ballgirl and got DQd), and the 2022 Australian Open (when his personal beliefs have infuriated a majority), this tennis genius we call the Djoker may have cost himself two Grand Slams, while potentially handing Nadal one. I'm personally not a big Grand Slam counter when it comes to determining the GOAT, and I'm also one of very few people that like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic pretty much equally. But the court of public opinion is going to come down hard on Nole in the short term. and he's going to be feeling the heat (Djokovic cares very much what people think about him).

Having lived through the vicissitudes of having a beloved spouse with cancer, I'm perfectly comfortable with uncertainty, not knowing anything definitive, and potentially never knowing, a GOAT when it comes to something as unimportant as tennis - I don't feel the need. Especially when you consider that Djokovic had both Federer and Nadal to build on (Nadal changed his game to have a chance against Federer on grass, and Djokovic changed his game to have a chance against Nadal on clay, as well as against Federer on grass - plus Nole is younger, and yes, it matters, although perhaps not for the reasons you think).

Sampras, with his 14 Grand Slam titles at the turn of this century seemed unbeatable, BUT, that's when "Grand Slam Titles" started to become a "thing" in the determination of the GOAT; it never used to be anything more than a minor component before Sampras chased down Roy Emerson.

Now, in 20 years, THREE people have demolished Sampras' record by almost 50% each! What are the odds of that happening again?

Well, I'd say that, only because the cumulative Grand Slam titles just became a "thing" this century, the odds are almost overwhelming of it happening again. We've had a total number of four players that based their GOAT case on this peculiar statistic: Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Fully 50% of the Grand Slams are on hard court, which is Djokovic's favorite surface; 25% are on clay (Nadal's favorite surface), and 25% are on grass (Federer's favorite surface). We've had three co-equal dominators this century, but what if, sometime in the next 20-30 years, there are only two, or even one? These three players have 60 Grand Slams between them. What's to prevent a smaller pool of dominant players from winning an even bigger share? Could 2 dominant players win 30 each? Could 1 dominant player - a Lance Armstrong type - win 40? If not, then why not?

I think Djoker will probably emerge atop this three-man heap with the highest number of Grand Slams, but so what? It will last for ... 10 years? 20? Is that going to make him the GOAT? Or will that make him the GOAT in the eye of the hoi polloi for the next 20 years only?

What if the strings and equipment take yet another quantum leap forward? Maybe the baseline game will become obsolete, or maybe it will become even more dominant. 

Don't think short; think long. There will probably be a satisfying answer within these three players in the next ten years, but it isn't going to mean much in the long term.

These are heady times to be a tennis fan, so we might as well enjoy it. All of it. I sure do; there's no reason not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Don't think short; think long. There will probably be a satisfying answer within these three players in the next ten years, but it isn't going to mean much in the long term.

These are heady times to be a tennis fan, so we might as well enjoy it. All of it. I sure do; there's no reason not to.

Not so much the "think long" part.  As an almost 70 year old, I need to think (& plan) a little shorter than the 20 years it may take for this to ever come around again.  The "enjoy it" part I got covered. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2022 at 3:41 AM, DonRocks said:

(Djokovic cares very much what people think about him).

Now, in 20 years, THREE people have demolished Sampras' record by almost 50% each! What are the odds of that happening again?

Don't think short; think long. There will probably be a satisfying answer within these three players in the next ten years, but it isn't going to mean much in the long term.

These are heady times to be a tennis fan, so we might as well enjoy it. All of it. I sure do; there's no reason not to.

Djokovic's concern about his image is what makes all of this so interesting. He truly cares, but can't cross over.

I won't say never to someone coming along and demolishing the big three records, but having three people come along at the same time with the skill, desire and long-term health (relatively speaking) to equal or surpass 20 grand slam titles will be a tall order.

Definitely a great time to be a tennis fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 8:08 PM, Steve R. said:

Over 50 years of watching tennis & I have never seen a better match.  As aFederer fan, it will take a while for me to get over him unsuccessfully serving at double match point - so damn close to winning another major - but all credit to Djokovic for hanging in there and breaking.   They are both truly great players in every way.  I just wish that I could like Djokovic more.  But I don’t.

Okay, let me update this.  Today's final in Cincy between Alcaraz & Djokovic has now become my #1.  Well, maybe it wasn't the "best" match (people have different definitions) but it was, to my eyes, the most talented twosome I've ever seen play the game & battle each other.  I've still not decided that I can say that I like Djokovic (his COVID stance and actions didn't help).  He's definitely sounding more likable to me as the years roll on, but I now have infinite respect for his ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Steve R. said:

Okay, let me update this.  Today's final in Cincy between Alcaraz & Djokovic has now become my #1.  Well, maybe it wasn't the "best" match (people have different definitions) but it was, to my eyes, the most talented twosome I've ever seen play the game & battle each other.  I've still not decided that I can say that I like Djokovic (his COVID stance and actions didn't help).  He's definitely sounding more likable to me as the years roll on, but I now have infinite respect for his ability.

That match was riveting. Was never a Djokovic fan, though he has been persecuted enough for his COVID stance. Feel like barring injury the next 6-8 men's finals could be Alcaraz/ Djokovic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Keithstg said:

That match was riveting. Was never a Djokovic fan, though he has been persecuted enough for his COVID stance. Feel like barring injury the next 6-8 men's finals could be Alcaraz/ Djokovic.

Before Sampras there was nobody except the relatively unknown Roy Emerson, and "Grand Slam Tournaments" weren't a thing of importance. Neither Borg, Connors, nor McEnroe cared about total number of "Grand Slam" tournaments.

Federer stood on the back of Sampras. Nadal stood on the back of Federer. Djokovic stood on the back of Nadal. That's the way incremental greatness works. Now, "Grand Slam Tournaments" are the measuring stick of greatness, but only since the beginning of this millenium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Before Sampras there was nobody except the relatively unknown Roy Emerson, and "Grand Slam Tournaments" weren't a thing of importance. Neither Borg, Connors, nor McEnroe cared about total number of "Grand Slam" tournaments.

Federer stood on the back of Sampras. Nadal stood on the back of Federer. Djokovic stood on the back of Nadal. That's the way incremental greatness works. Now, "Grand Slam Tournaments" are the measuring stick of greatness, but only since the beginning of this millenium.

Agree with the second part, but regarding the first - the "Open Era" began in the late 60s and changed tennis completely and the Slams became even more important as travel became far easier. To think that Borg, Connors, or McEnroe didn't care about the number of Grand Slams they won seems silly. Grand Slams were ALWAYS more important than other tournaments. Do you think Arthur Ashe cared more about winning the US Open, the Perth Amboy Invitational, or the Caribe Hilton International?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that I'm more in agreement than disagreement with the idea that Grand Slams define greatness in our current era.  However, for me at least, that's an easier conclusion on the women's side.  The fact that the men's Grand Slams are "best of 5 sets" significantly changes the game for me by rewarding some qualities (longer concentration, consistency, fitness) more than the other tournaments do and, therefore, creating the possibility of some folks winning more Grand Slams (& not "lower" tournaments, where the sprinters might excel).  There's also my need to include, in the term greatness, the ability to win on all surfaces.  So, for both the men and women, I'd want to see their Grand Slam titles reasonably distributed over hard, clay, red clay and grass surfaces.

That being said, on the men's side, one would still be hard pressed to deny who the best players have been over the last 10-15 years.  On the women's side, a no-brainer until you get to #2 🤔.

btw: the US Open Quals started today.  Couldn't get there, but will definitely prowl the grounds tomorrow and Friday.  Then, tickets to 3 days next week when it officially begins.  Anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...