Another angle on comparing tennis greats (with a pretty chart)

[Jelenafan]

I still maintain that Lendl is the most underrated great in the Open Era. He wasn't just consistent but truly dominant for 85-89, except for Wilander's big year in '88, and an elite player for over a decade.

 

[Jelenafan]

In an era where not all the top players considered it obligatory to play all 4 Slams, the USO was the tournament the elite played. The depth of top players who could win a Slam in Lendl’s day was IMO the deepest of the Open Era. From a span of Borg, Johnny Mac & Connors through Becker, Wilander & Edberg, etc.

Lendl reached a jaw dropping eight consecutive USO finals, unmatched in nearly 100 years. (Tilden accomplished this feat by 1925)

 

[Fiero425]

In an era where not all the top players considered it obligatory to play all 4 Slams, the USO was the tournament the elite played. The depth of top players who could win a Slam in Lendl’s day was IMO the deepest of the Open Era. From a span of Borg, Johnny Mac & Connors through Becker, Wilander & Edberg, etc.

Lendl reached a jaw dropping eight consecutive USO finals, unmatched in nearly 100 years. (Tilden accomplished this feat by 1925)

The USO may be a top tier event, but players aren't thrilled about it I can tell you! It's been a trash event since the 70's being played on grass in Forest Hills! A stray bullet fired into the place made them rethink a move I guess! Way back then it wasn't a big deal, but at the time the SF & Final were played on cons. days! Even w/o all the conditioning done today, it was do-able! By the time it moved to Flushing Meadows in '78 to HC's, it got harder which is why the same players made the SF & Final year after year! Some handled it better like Evert, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, & Navratilova! I can still hear a player saying the best idea for the place was to get hit by an A-Bomb; esp. w/ the constant fly-overs by airplanes throughout the event! The admin. added to how trashy the event was back then w/ controversies dealing w/ seeding, "suspect draws" that had to be re-pulled, & scheduling that was incomprehensible! I can still remember some guy finishing his match well after midnight, but they had him play early at noon against Connors! It had nothing to do w/ catching up due to rain; just plain ineptitude on display! NO BS, all this happened!

 

[Jelenafan]

The USO may be a top tier event, but players aren't thrilled about it I can tell you! It's been a trash event since the 70's being played on grass in Forest Hills! A stray bullet fired into the place made them rethink a move I guess! Way back then it wasn't a big deal, but at the time the SF & Final were played on cons. days! Even w/o all the conditioning done today, it was do-able! By the time it moved to Flushing Meadows in '78 to HC's, it got harder which is why the same players made the SF & Final year after year! Some handled it better like Evert, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, & Navratilova! I can still hear a player saying the best idea for the place was to get hit by an A-Bomb; esp. w/ the constant fly-overs by airplanes throughout the event! The admin. added to how trashy the event was back then w/ controversies dealing w/ seeding, "suspect draws" that had to be re-pulled, & scheduling that was incomprehensible! I can still remember some guy finishing his match well after midnight, but they had him play early at noon against Connors! It had nothing to do w/ catching up due to rain; just plain ineptitude on display! NO BS, all this happened!

True though IIRC more skipped Wimbledon (the clay court specialists) or the French Open (HC players) in that era, and the AO wasn’t really top tier.

 

[shawnbm]

True though IIRC more skipped Wimbledon (the clay court specialists) or the French Open (HC players) in that era, and the AO wasn’t really top tier.

^ This

 

[El Dude]

A

The USO may be a top tier event, but players aren't thrilled about it I can tell you! It's been a trash event since the 70's being played on grass in Forest Hills! A stray bullet fired into the place made them rethink a move I guess! Way back then it wasn't a big deal, but at the time the SF & Final were played on cons. days! Even w/o all the conditioning done today, it was do-able! By the time it moved to Flushing Meadows in '78 to HC's, it got harder which is why the same players made the SF & Final year after year! Some handled it better like Evert, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, & Navratilova! I can still hear a player saying the best idea for the place was to get hit by an A-Bomb; esp. w/ the constant fly-overs by airplanes throughout the event! The admin. added to how trashy the event was back then w/ controversies dealing w/ seeding, "suspect draws" that had to be re-pulled, & scheduling that was incomprehensible! I can still remember some guy finishing his match well after midnight, but they had him play early at noon against Connors! It had nothing to do w/ catching up due to rain; just plain ineptitude on display! NO BS, all this happened!

Hmm. I'm not ancient of days like yourself so don't remember the USO from the decade I was born, but it is worth noting that of all the Slams, the US Open had the highest percentage of top 10 players for most of the decade. Just about all of the top players showed up. Of course by "trash" you seem to be implying something more qualitative, but in terms of depth of competition, it had an edge over even Wimbledon during most of the 70s and even into the 80s.

And of course it is well-known that the AO was basically a glorified ATP 500 through most of the 70s and into the early 80s. In the first few years, especially 1969-71, there was still a good number of top players who attended, probably because it was still within the end days of Australian dominance. Plus, Arthur Ashe usually played there. But after the great Australians were out, it got really bad.

In one year, 1976, not a single year-end top 10 player participated. That was the year Mark Edmondson won, beating a post-prime Newcombe in the final, as well as a 41 year old Ken Rosewall in the SF. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, 13 of the 14 weakest Slams of the Open Era were the Australian Opens of the 70s and early 80s. There was one weak WImbledon (1973) sprinkled in there, and then starting with #15 you get some Roland Garros events from early on, when a lot of non clay specialists would skip it.

The AO started picking up a bit in 1983-85 when Wilander went, Edberg emerged, and even McEnroe finally joined them, but was still more of a weakish Masters equivalent. Then the skipped year in 1986, and when it returned it was a bonafide Slam - if fourth among near equals really through the 90s and until Big Four Era.

Anyhow, it is one of the things that is good about this era: All of the Slams are of basically equal merit, with only minor oscillations due to player injury. Wimbledon will always have the patina of the first, but really the differences are more specific to the court. I do wish there was a bit less surface homogeneity, though, but there's still enough of a difference to make things interesting and to have clay and fast court specialists. So we could see a Hurkacz sneak out of a Wimbledon trophy, or even someone like Sebastian Baez win Roland Garros with a lucky draw.

 

[Fiero425]

A

Hmm. I'm not ancient of days like yourself so don't remember the USO from the decade I was born, but it is worth noting that of all the Slams, the US Open had the highest percentage of top 10 players for most of the decade. Just about all of the top players showed up. Of course by "trash" you seem to be implying something more qualitative, but in terms of depth of competition, it had an edge over even Wimbledon during most of the 70s and even into the 80s.

And of course it is well-known that the AO was basically a glorified ATP 500 through most of the 70s and into the early 80s. In the first few years, especially 1969-71, there was still a good number of top players who attended, probably because it was still within the end days of Australian dominance. Plus, Arthur Ashe usually played there. But after the great Australians were out, it got really bad.

In one year, 1976, not a single year-end top 10 player participated. That was the year Mark Edmondson won, beating a post-prime Newcombe in the final, as well as a 41 year old Ken Rosewall in the SF. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, 13 of the 14 weakest Slams of the Open Era were the Australian Opens of the 70s and early 80s. There was one weak WImbledon (1973) sprinkled in there, and then starting with #15 you get some Roland Garros events from early on, when a lot of non clay specialists would skip it.

The AO started picking up a bit in 1983-85 when Wilander went, Edberg emerged, and even McEnroe finally joined them, but was still more of a weakish Masters equivalent. Then the skipped year in 1986, and when it returned it was a bonafide Slam - if fourth among near equals really through the 90s and until Big Four Era.

Anyhow, it is one of the things that is good about this era: All of the Slams are of basically equal merit, with only minor oscillations due to player injury. Wimbledon will always have the patina of the first, but really the differences are more specific to the court. I do wish there was a bit less surface homogeneity, though, but there's still enough of a difference to make things interesting and to have clay and fast court specialists. So we could see a Hurkacz sneak out of a Wimbledon trophy, or even someone like Sebastian Baez win Roland Garros with a lucky draw.

Ivan Lendl's in the mix bringing AO into prominance making SF's & Finals on grass; finally winning a couple on HC in '89 & '90! Edberg gave Lendl the most heartburn; esp. at Wimbledon! Like Novak, he had losses to a few people in Majors like Wilander, Becker, & Edberg, but overall owned them w/ winning records all over the place H2H! He had a very respectable career & results, labeled the villain in the piece! It didn't help that he actually wore black early on in '80!

 

[El Dude]

Sinner's been far & away the best player if results are the only dynamic! It isn't as cut & dry w/ a WADA investigation hanging over his head! Carlos needs to "pull back" a lit'l to make his results more consistent! I guess winning China Open helped, but his results in the FALL have reminded me of Nadal's; totally spent going into the YEC! Sinner & Alcaraz have officially taken over it seems as they're making final after final! Time may have run out on The Lost Gen II, w/ Sascha, Stefanos, Dom, & Daniil! They had their chances only taking 2 majors, 4 YEC's, & an Olympic Gold medal between the 4 of them OTTH! Carlos could get his CGS very early in his career by taking Aussie next yr.! Normally the FO is the 1 major needed to complete this feat! Very impressive start!

To be fair to what you call "Lost Gen II" (formerly "Next Gen"), they've been unlucky on both ends, chronologically speaking. One one end, they had to deal with probably the three greatest players of all time having extended prime years then taking turns having career renaissances starting in 2017 with Fedal, just as they were starting to come of age. Really, going back to 2005, there hasn't been a Slam in which at least two of the Big Four were in prime form -- all the way through the 2022 Wimbledon, which was Rafa's last SF.

On the other end, it is that exact Slam that saw Carlos Alcaraz rise and win his first. Carlos was still a pup and beatable in 2023, but Novak had one of his best years. By the end of that year, Jannik Sinner was rising fast and in 2024, he and Alcaraz fully took the reigns of dominance.

The point being, there was really no gap between the extended hegemony of the Big 3/4 and the rise of Sincaraz. The baton got passed over two generations.

Certainly a truly great player will find and take his shots. That's pretty much the definition of a great: a player that finds a way to win big tournaments--especially Slams--regardless of the context. None of Next Gen will go down in history as ATGs, but there are several that are better than any Lost Genner.

Still, I chuckled at the appellation - they are a bit lost, but far less so than the Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov gang.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a visual depiction from one of my charts. Slams only - top players from 2016-24, slam-winners in bold:

As you can see, the Slams were dominated by the Big Four - who won all of them on this chart until Thiem in 2020, except for Wawrinka's last in 2016. That includes 13 straight from 2017 to mid 2020 - which are exactly the years that "Next Gen" came into their own (which is pretty much Thiem through Tsitsipas in the chart above).

And then you have Novak pass the baton to Alcaraz in Sinner in the last year and a half or so.

You can also see the records of Next Gen in Slam finals: 1-3 for Thiem, 0-1 for Kyrgios, 1-5 for Medvedev, 0-1 for Berrettini, 0-2 for Zverev, 0-1 for Fritz , 0-2 for Tsitsipas, 0-3 for Ruud...that's 2-18 overall. Yikes.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, and compare that to the "true" Lost Gen (born after Cilic/Del Potro and before Thiem): 0-2. That's it - just one Slam final loss for each of Nishikori and Raonic.

Aside from possible the group born after Laver in 38 and before Ashe in 43, it is probably the weakest 4-5 year cohort in Open Era history.

 

[Moxie]

To be fair to what you call "Lost Gen II" (formerly "Next Gen"), they've been unlucky on both ends, chronologically speaking. One one end, they had to deal with probably the three greatest players of all time having extended prime years then taking turns having career renaissances starting in 2017 with Fedal, just as they were starting to come of age. Really, going back to 2005, there hasn't been a Slam in which at least two of the Big Four were in prime form -- all the way through the 2022 Wimbledon, which was Rafa's last SF.

On the other end, it is that exact Slam that saw Carlos Alcaraz rise and win his first. Carlos was still a pup and beatable in 2023, but Novak had one of his best years. By the end of that year, Jannik Sinner was rising fast and in 2024, he and Alcaraz fully took the reigns of dominance.

The point being, there was really no gap between the extended hegemony of the Big 3/4 and the rise of Sincaraz. The baton got passed over two generations.

Certainly a truly great player will find and take his shots. That's pretty much the definition of a great: a player that finds a way to win big tournaments--especially Slams--regardless of the context. None of Next Gen will go down in history as ATGs, but there are several that are better than any Lost Genner.

Still, I chuckled at the appellation - they are a bit lost, but far less so than the Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov gang.

Sort of like Rafa being sandwiched between 2 other ATG's on either side, but, he, being a Great, managed to find his way. (Standing by for your enormous sigh, here, but you know I'm right.)

I think you're a bit generous to them, but you did say that it's on them for not finding a way. Thiem didn't even win his by beating one of the Big 3. That's only Daniil. So, what it comes down to, then, is talent, right? Or that, and grit (or lack thereof.) At least Lost Gen I had a younger Big 3/4 to deal with. And yes, they were out-classed. I think Lost Gen II is a fair appellation. They had older Big 3, and STILL couldn't get past them, but for one. Now they have very talented ones coming up in Alcaraz and Sinner. It's unlucky for them, I guess, but they could try harder to make their own luck. Can we just concede that they simply aren't good enough? Because what your theory/graph shows is that their only hope was finding a fallow period, like late 90s/early 2000s, when a few people snuck one out, here and there.

 

[El Dude]

Sort of like Rafa being sandwiched between 2 other ATG's on either side, but, he, being a Great, managed to find his way. (Standing by for your enormous sigh, here, but you know I'm right.)

I think you're a bit generous to them, but you did say that it's on them for not finding a way. Thiem didn't even win his by beating one of the Big 3. That's only Daniil. So, what it comes down to, then, is talent, right? Or that, and grit (or lack thereof.) At least Lost Gen I had a younger Big 3/4 to deal with. And yes, they were out-classed. I think Lost Gen II is a fair appellation. They had older Big 3, and STILL couldn't get past them, but for one. Now they have very talented ones coming up in Alcaraz and Sinner. It's unlucky for them, I guess, but they could try harder to make their own luck. Can we just concede that they simply aren't good enough? Because what your theory/graph shows is that their only hope was finding a fallow period, like late 90s/early 2000s, when a few people snuck one out, here and there.

We aren't disagreeing, Moxie, but I'm just emphasizing that Lost Gen II (or Next Gen) > Lost Gen I. They're not simply a continuation of that level of suckitude, but a step up to a lesser degree of suckitude -- if still far from greatness.

For comparison's sake, I sort of see Andrey Rublev as a similar caliber player as Tomas Berdych. Overall similar results, with the caveat that Berdych tended to go a bit deeper in Slams, but Rublev does better at non-Slams. Rublev is probably the fifth best player of Lost Gen II - after Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. How many players of Lost Gen I were better than Berdych? Any? Maybe Nishikori for a few years but his peak was relatively short; Raonic and Dimitrov had flashes, but overall? Maybe none. Rublev vs. Nishikori becomes more interesting (I'd argue that Kei was better at his best, but Rublev has been overall more prodigious in his results and level of play).

So you have four guys (Medvedev, Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas) who are better than any Lost Genners, one guy who is roughly equal to the best of Lost Gen (Rublev), and a handful of guys who aren't far behind the best of Lost Gen (Berrettini, Hurkacz, Khachanov, maybe one or two more). Berrettini is probably the closest thing to a "What If" story, in that he seemed to be gearing up when he started getting hurt. We could keep going down the list, but I think overall the younger generation is considerable better - both in terms of depth and quality.

But again, that doesn't make it a good generation - just markedly better than the "true" Lost Gen. In a way it was a transition out of the Dark Ages of tennis prospects - but didn't quite make the muster, with no truly great players.

And don't forget Fiero's MO: If a player isn't peak Borg, he sucks. There's no differentiation - you're either peak Borg or you suck, so really there are only half a dozen players or so who haven't sucked ;-).

 

[Moxie]

We aren't disagreeing, Moxie, but I'm just emphasizing that Lost Gen II (or Next Gen) > Lost Gen I. They're not simply a continuation of that level of suckitude, but a step up to a lesser degree of suckitude -- if still far from greatness.

Oh, I know we're not disagreeing, just discussing. I can't remember who all was in the Lost Gen I, but it was a weak field.

For comparison's sake, I sort of see Andrey Rublev as a similar caliber player as Tomas Berdych. Overall similar results, with the caveat that Berdych tended to go a bit deeper in Slams, but Rublev does better at non-Slams. Rublev is probably the fifth best player of Lost Gen II - after Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. How many players of Lost Gen I were better than Berdych? Any? Maybe Nishikori for a few years but his peak was relatively short; Raonic and Dimitrov had flashes, but overall? Maybe none. Rublev vs. Nishikori becomes more interesting (I'd argue that Kei was better at his best, but Rublev has been overall more prodigious in his results and level of play).

You love to use Berdych as an example, and he is kind of a good one, in terms of "solid, constant, but not massively talented," and in the era of greater players, but he doesn't line up against everyone. Two quibbles I have with the above is that you wonder if Nishikori was better than Berdych, or if Dimitrov was. Nishikori I think was a much more interesting and talented player than Tomas, but he was unlucky with injuries. I don't think he had ATG in him, but he caused trouble. His window of best years was unfortunately narrow. Because he also had a good head. As to Dimitrov, even you have wondered recently if he had a resurgence in him, when looking at big tournaments. To me, he is the poster boy for the Lost Gen. Lots of talent, so much potential, but so much distraction or who knows what. To me, Zverev and Tsitsipas are the inheritors of his ignominious mantel. So, I see why you compare Kei and Grigor unfavorably to Berdych, in terms of overall results. but I don't think he's a good fit, in terms of playing style or general ceiling/floor. I do think the comparison with Rublev fits, though.

So you have four guys (Medvedev, Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas) who are better than any Lost Genners, one guy who is roughly equal to the best of Lost Gen (Rublev), and a handful of guys who aren't far behind the best of Lost Gen (Berrettini, Hurkacz, Khachanov, maybe one or two more). Berrettini is probably the closest thing to a "What If" story, in that he seemed to be gearing up when he started getting hurt. We could keep going down the list, but I think overall the younger generation is considerable better - both in terms of depth and quality.

I won't repeat my above, but I see the point that Lost Gen II has more depth, even if they can't get over the hump. I think that some of those guys, like Khachanov, make the list because they snuck out a big title when the Big 3 were caring less about them, late season, esp. Berrettini having so many injury/illness issues is a bummer, but he'd still be running more or less where these guys are.

But again, that doesn't make it a good generation - just markedly better than the "true" Lost Gen. In a way it was a transition out of the Dark Ages of tennis prospects - but didn't quite make the muster, with no truly great players.

And don't forget Fiero's MO: If a player isn't peak Borg, he sucks. There's no differentiation - you're either peak Borg or you suck, so really there are only half a dozen players or so who haven't sucked ;-).

Fair points, and yes, I know that Fiero is a hysteric. He mostly sits on his porch tells everyone to get off of his lawn. Everyone sucks, including Nadal. So we take that with a salt mine full of salt.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Sinner's been far & away the best player if results are the only dynamic! It isn't as cut & dry w/ a WADA investigation hanging over his head! Carlos needs to "pull back" a lit'l to make his results more consistent! I guess winning China Open helped, but his results in the FALL have reminded me of Nadal's; totally spent going into the YEC! Sinner & Alcaraz have officially taken over it seems as they're making final after final! Time may have run out on The Lost Gen II, w/ Sascha, Stefanos, Dom, & Daniil! They had their chances only taking 2 majors, 4 YEC's, & an Olympic Gold medal between the 4 of them OTTH! Carlos could get his CGS very early in his career by taking Aussie next yr.! Normally the FO is the 1 major needed to complete this feat! Very impressive start!

2005 was the only year when Rafa really overdid it. He was a developing 19-year-old, who was playing at every tournament (and pretty much winning them all). He should have cut back after the US Open, but I don't blame him. I blame the ATP for putting meaningless tournaments in between the US Open and YEC. The YEC should take place immediately after the US Open and those tournaments can start a new season following the break. It would provide a much longer ramp-up to the Australian Open, which would be good for the players.

 

[El Dude]

If you win two majors in a year that is pretty incredible stuff. Does not happen often except for top tier ATGs.

Yep. Just 16 players have done it in the Open Era, the worst being Vilas and Courier. Edberg is the only no-contest ATG that didn't do it. Only 8 have done it more than once.

4-Slam winners:
1 Laver

3-Slam winners:
4 Djokovic
3 Federer
1 Connors, Wilander, Nadal


2+ Slam winners:
7 Djokovic
6 Federer, Nadal
4 Sampras
3 Borg
2 Connors, McEnroe, Lendl
1 Newcombe, Vilas, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Agassi, Alcaraz, Sinner

 

[El Dude]

It is also interesting to note that two seasons of 2+ plans seems to separate the "inner circle greats" from the rest.

 

[El Dude]

Agreed! This is a joke IMO! Fritz in the top 5 is so ridiculous IMO! It shows how weak the tour has become w/o the Big 3! It's all about Sincaraz, then the rest! Don't get me wrong, the level of tennis has risen exponentially, but the speed of the game & the players breaking down will make it hard to stay consistent; even at the top of the rankings! We had several retirements over the wkend w/ players unable to continue even if winning a match! That will become a theme of the game IMO! The play is more about power than skill & it's costing all concerned!

This doesn't really make logical sense. The Big 3 only hogged 60% of the top 5, while now there's a Big 2 - so that's 40%. I think more of a factor is that after those two, there's more parity from 2-10ish (or maybe 6-15ish, if we an to consider Zverev, Medvedev, and Djokovic as a tier "1B").

Out of curiosity, I did some research.

Taylor Fritz became the 68th player with a year-end top 5 ATP ranking (1973 - present). Here they are, by number of years ranked in the top 5:

16 Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
14 Connors
11 Lendl
10 Sampras
9 McEnroe, Edberg, Becker
8 Borg, Agassi, Murray
6 Newcombe, Laver, Ashe, Vilas, Wilander
5 Kafelnikov, D Medvedev
4 Gerulaitis, Chang, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrer, Zverev
3 Rosewall, Smith, Nastase, Orantes, Courier, Ivanisevic, Kuerten, Ferrero, Moya, Safin, Roddick, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Thiem, Alcaraz
2 Roche, Okker, Noah, Stich, Bruguera, Muster, Rafter, Nishikori, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Sinner
1 Richey, Ramirez, Gottfried, Tanner, G Mayer, Clerc, Gomez, Bjorkman, Corretja, Rios, Enqvist, Norman, Coria, Lubjicic, Blake, Soderling, Raonic, Dimitrov, Ruud, Fritz

That's actually 71 players as I used Ultimate Tennis Statistics' "Open Era Ranking," which uses the same older formula for 1968-72. Active players (as of 2025) in bold.

If you estimate rankings back to 1920 or so, Tilden would probably have the most top 5 rankings, followed by Rosewall. Laver would be in the mix with Connors, and Gonzales probably between Connors and Lendl.

Is Fritz the worst player to finish year-end top 5 once? I don't think so. I'd probably go with one of the guys from the late 90s or early 00s - Norman, Lubjicic, Blake. At least Fritz has won a big title - some of those guys haven't. And who knows, he may attain a second year and move up to join the next group.

 

[mrzz]

I'd probably go with one of the guys from the late 90s or early 00s - Norman, Lubjicic, Blake

Yeah, but Blake was super fun to watch

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Coria is hands down the worst player to ever finish in a YE Top 5.

The biggest surprise to me is that Petr Korda never finished in a YE Top 5. I would have thought he would have at least once or twice, considering he won a slam and got to #2 in the world.

 

[Jelenafan]

Coria is hands down the worst player to ever finish in a YE Top 5.

The biggest surprise to me is that Petr Korda never finished in a YE Top 5. I would have thought he would have at least once or twice, considering he won a slam and got to #2 in the world.

Guillermo Coria for 2 years was provably top 2 on the clay surface, and the year he was YE top 5 he made the SF ( French) & QTRS (USO) of 2 Slams and reached 2 Masters finals, winning 1 (Hamburg).

Compare that to say, James Blake and other overrated players and he compares quite well, IMO hardly “the worst”