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

[Fiero425]

It is a big solace, though, isn't it? I mean, think of all the guys who didn't win Slams. Thiem was probably better at his peak than guys like Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga (or Davydenko, Nalbandian, etc)--better players than Slam winners such as Gaudio and Johansson--but the gap isn't huge, and Thiem got the hardware to show his grandchildren.

Thiem burned pretty bright for a few years but then flickered out - not unlike players such as Stich and Rafter. With the ridiculous level and longevity of the Big Three, it is easy to forget that most players neither burn as brightly or for as long. There are so many "What if" tales out there...players whose potential is never fully reached, for a variety of reasons. To me the most palpable recent example is Juan Martin del Potro. Imagine dialing back to the end of 2009 and him getting a career do-over. I don't think he would have ever quite reached the level of the Big Three, but he could have been right there with Andy Murray, or perhaps had a Stanimal-esque peak run. Definitely think he could have whittled a few more Slams from the Big Three hegemony.

No doubt about it! Like so many other players: Wawrinka & Murray in particular, they couldn't overcome the greatness & longevity of the Big 3! They sqelched any hint of any other player outside of them making an impact on the game in their ERA! Their dominance was & continues to be unprecedented w/ them taking almost all of the Big titles for over 2 decades! Thiem handled Djokovic a couple times on clay, but no matter the surface, Nadal was able to survive his encounters against Dom! Their 2018 USO QTRF'L was classic, going 5 sets, almost 5 hours, w/ saved MP's by both players! He works too hard to play the game, so no one should be surprised he'd "limp" out of the game one way or another! I'm just surprised Nadal's held on this long! He's the epitome of a player who works too hard to win the simplest of matches vs players not even in the top 50! Going 4-5 sets against nobodies even when he won those 14 FO's was the norm in early rounds! It's a shame Dom wasn't able to make that "comeback" like Fedalovic when they had injuries!

 

[Moxie]

It is a big solace, though, isn't it? I mean, think of all the guys who didn't win Slams. Thiem was probably better at his peak than guys like Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga (or Davydenko, Nalbandian, etc)--better players than Slam winners such as Gaudio and Johansson--but the gap isn't huge, and Thiem got the hardware to show his grandchildren.

Thiem burned pretty bright for a few years but then flickered out - not unlike players such as Stich and Rafter. With the ridiculous level and longevity of the Big Three, it is easy to forget that most players neither burn as brightly or for as long. There are so many "What if" tales out there...players whose potential is never fully reached, for a variety of reasons. To me the most palpable recent example is Juan Martin del Potro. Imagine dialing back to the end of 2009 and him getting a career do-over. I don't think he would have ever quite reached the level of the Big Three, but he could have been right there with Andy Murray, or perhaps had a Stanimal-esque peak run. Definitely think he could have whittled a few more Slams from the Big Three hegemony.

Theim's story IS sad. Yes, he won a Major, like Del Potro, and they can't take that away from you. Theim is unfortunate in the health department. But, let's put him up against Murray, Del Potro, and Wawrinka. Where would you rank them in terms of potential, if not for injury and coming up against the Big 3?

My inclination is to go:

Del Potro
Murray
Wawrinka
Theim

Is it fair to put Del Potro first? Who knows? But I think he had more up-side v. big 3/4 than the rest. I really do think he'd have done damage, if he'd stayed healthy.

Murray: I know folks don't all like him, or his game, but he was the single most consistent outside of the Big 3...and a big title winner. During their era. In any case, he got to #1, and in that time frame. It was years that it was only Roger, Rafa, then Novak. When Andy got to #1 in late 2016, he was only the 4th player since 2004 to get there, since Roger did in early 2004, after the Oz open. That's almost 13 years with 3 #1's, and Murray got in there. Like Murray's game or not, give him credit for being just behind the best in a brutally tough era.

Wawrinka: While I agree that Stan had a great upside, I think he got a bit lucky. He got an injured Nadal to win his first Major final, which gives a level of confidence for your second try. I'm not saying he wasn't talented...he was. (And I mean the past tense in this.) But he was so up and down that I'm not sure he'd have done any better than he did.

Theim: Of these is he more talented? I don't think so. If he'd stayed healthy, he could have been more troublesome to more talented players, but I don't think he'd have won another Major, given what we're seeing from the youngsters. We know he won his lone Major v. Zverev, who collapsed in that final. Theim was rather gifted that final. I didn't see him play stunning tennis at any point in that US Open that he won. And had Novak not been defaulted, I find it had to picture Thiem having even that title.

 

[El Dude]

Fun fact about Gasquet: his title winning span of 2005-22, or 18 years, is surpassed only by four players in the Open Era:

19 years
Agassi (1987-2005)
Federer (2001-19)
Nadal (2004-22)
Monfils (2005-23)

18 years
Connors (1972-89)
Gasquet (2005-22)
Djokovic (2006-23)

If you go back before the Open Era, guys like Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall have spans of way more than 20 years.

 

[shawnbm]

Surprise to see Richard's name with Connors and Novak on a major statistic like that--then Gael alongside Rafa, Roger and Agassi!!! LOL

 

[the AntiPusher]

It is a big solace, though, isn't it? I mean, think of all the guys who didn't win Slams. Thiem was probably better at his peak than guys like Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga (or Davydenko, Nalbandian, etc)--better players than Slam winners such as Gaudio and Johansson--but the gap isn't huge, and Thiem got the hardware to show his grandchildren.

Thiem burned pretty bright for a few years but then flickered out - not unlike players such as Stich and Rafter. With the ridiculous level and longevity of the Big Three, it is easy to forget that most players neither burn as brightly or for as long. There are so many "What if" tales out there...players whose potential is never fully reached, for a variety of reasons. To me the most palpable recent example is Juan Martin del Potro. Imagine dialing back to the end of 2009 and him getting a career do-over. I don't think he would have ever quite reached the level of the Big Three, but he could have been right there with Andy Murray, or perhaps had a Stanimal-esque peak run. Definitely think he could have whittled a few more Slams from the Big Three hegemony.

Thiem is definitely a Hall of Famer. El Dude, we have seen flashes of brilliant from Thiem late last year. I wouldn't give up on tennis at age 30 plus. Look at the German player who just won his first title at age 33. Thiem's injuries wasn't as crippling as JMDP or Murray's setback. Being a competitor you have to ride out the storm in the sea until the right wave appears to bring you back Inland to shore. Giving up or Quitting is not an option. This doesn't have to be Thiem's Waterloo or Battle of little big horn. IMO

 

[El Dude]

Theim's story IS sad. Yes, he won a Major, like Del Potro, and they can't take that away from you. Theim is unfortunate in the health department. But, let's put him up against Murray, Del Potro, and Wawrinka. Where would you rank them in terms of potential, if not for injury and coming up against the Big 3?

My inclination is to go:

Del Potro
Murray
Wawrinka
Theim

Is it fair to put Del Potro first? Who knows? But I think he had more up-side v. big 3/4 than the rest. I really do think he'd have done damage, if he'd stayed healthy.

Murray: I know folks don't all like him, or his game, but he was the single most consistent outside of the Big 3...and a big title winner. During their era. In any case, he got to #1, and in that time frame. It was years that it was only Roger, Rafa, then Novak. When Andy got to #1 in late 2016, he was only the 4th player since 2004 to get there, since Roger did in early 2004, after the Oz open. That's almost 13 years with 3 #1's, and Murray got in there. Like Murray's game or not, give him credit for being just behind the best in a brutally tough era.

Wawrinka: While I agree that Stan had a great upside, I think he got a bit lucky. He got an injured Nadal to win his first Major final, which gives a level of confidence for your second try. I'm not saying he wasn't talented...he was. (And I mean the past tense in this.) But he was so up and down that I'm not sure he'd have done any better than he did.

Theim: Of these is he more talented? I don't think so. If he'd stayed healthy, he could have been more troublesome to more talented players, but I don't think he'd have won another Major, given what we're seeing from the youngsters. We know he won his lone Major v. Zverev, who collapsed in that final. Theim was rather gifted that final. I didn't see him play stunning tennis at any point in that US Open that he won. And had Novak not been defaulted, I find it had to picture Thiem having even that title.

I agree with your order, although maybe because--unlike the other three--we never truly got to see a healthy, peak Del Potro. 2009 was a hint, but he was forever changed after that and never really was healthy enough and for long enough to reach his full potential. In other words, of the four you mention, he fell furthest from what we can speculate might have been his peak. I think we saw the best the other three were capable of, but not poor Delpo.

As you say, Stan's legacy is really three tournaments. Yes, they were Slams, but outside of those, and other brief moments, he was so inconsistent. He's an interesting player, both for the late breakout and because he was nigh unbeatable at times, beating the best of the best, but his inconsistency kept him from being truly great.

As for Andy, I actually put him in a similar category as Edberg and Wilander. I know, the Slam counts, but his overall accomplishments and level of play were similar, and 2015 was a truly great season - almost certainly the best single Slam season of the Open Era. A Slam title (and two finals), Tour Finals, Olympics Gold, three Masters, three ATP 500s - and that amazing run at the end of the year to steal #1 away from Novak. Just remarkable. Outside of that year, he was still the fourth best player behind three GOATs for most of a decade. As many have speculated, if he lived in almost any other era he likely would have won twice as many Slams.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I agree with your order, although maybe because--unlike the other three--we never truly got to see a healthy, peak Del Potro. 2009 was a hint, but he was forever changed after that and never really was healthy enough and for long enough to reach his full potential. In other words, of the four you mention, he fell furthest from what we can speculate might have been his peak. I think we saw the best the other three were capable of, but not poor Delpo.

As you say, Stan's legacy is really three tournaments. Yes, they were Slams, but outside of those, and other brief moments, he was so inconsistent. He's an interesting player, both for the late breakout and because he was nigh unbeatable at times, beating the best of the best, but his inconsistency kept him from being truly great.

As for Andy, I actually put him in a similar category as Edberg and Wilander. I know, the Slam counts, but his overall accomplishments and level of play were similar, and 2015 was a truly great season - almost certainly the best single Slam season of the Open Era. A Slam title (and two finals), Tour Finals, Olympics Gold, three Masters, three ATP 500s - and that amazing run at the end of the year to steal #1 away from Novak. Just remarkable. Outside of that year, he was still the fourth best player behind three GOATs for most of a decade. As many have speculated, if he lived in almost any other era he likely would have won twice as many Slams.

Quick correction: It was 2016 not 2015, El Dude.

I will say this about Andy Murray: If he was either born in 1977 or 1997, he would have 6+ slams right about now.

 

[El Dude]

Quick correction: It was 2016 not 2015, El Dude.

I will say this about Andy Murray: If he was either born in 1977 or 1997, he would have 6+ slams right about now.

Ah, yes. 2015 was Novak's great year. And yeah, agreed. The post-peak Sampras to pre-peak Roger era was pretty soft, and would have been ripe for a great player. Similarly, the leaner later years of the Big Four era when at least one of the Big Three was out and/or playing poorly. Pretty much from 2005 to 2019 were bad years for anyone other than the Big 3 to try to win anything, with 2008-15 being particularly nightmarish. Andy was lucky that Roger was injured and Rafa not himself in 2016, and then Novak stumbled. But he capitalized, and that's what great players do - so no shame on him.

 

[Front242]

Thiem’s story makes me so sad. He was such a force before this injury. He was the only one of his player group who was someone the Big 3 didn’t want to see on their side of the draw. He was such a foil and dark horse in tournaments. My one solace is that he did win a slam before this happened.

It's terrible alright although it has to be said he only won a slam cos Zverev is a serial choker.

 

[Fiero425]

Ah, yes. 2015 was Novak's great year. And yeah, agreed. The post-peak Sampras to pre-peak Roger era was pretty soft, and would have been ripe for a great player. Similarly, the leaner later years of the Big Four era when at least one of the Big Three was out and/or playing poorly. Pretty much from 2005 to 2019 were bad years for anyone other than the Big 3 to try to win anything, with 2008-15 being particularly nightmarish. Andy was lucky that Roger was injured and Rafa not himself in 2016, and then Novak stumbled. But he capitalized, and that's what great players do - so no shame on him.

No one will ever match Djokovic's 2015! OTTH he played as "near perfect" as you can w/o taking everything that season! I thought his 2011 was safe as being the All Time top season for a male player, but I was wrong! He not only won 3 majors (SF FO) again, he played 8 Masters, winning 6 (2 finals), then capped it off w/ a YEC bettering his 2011 season! No wonder Nadal gives Novak a backhanded compliment about numbers! He never came close to that; even w/ his 2008, 2010, & 2013!

 

[rafanoy1992]

Ah, yes. 2015 was Novak's great year. And yeah, agreed. The post-peak Sampras to pre-peak Roger era was pretty soft, and would have been ripe for a great player. Similarly, the leaner later years of the Big Four era when at least one of the Big Three was out and/or playing poorly. Pretty much from 2005 to 2019 were bad years for anyone other than the Big 3 to try to win anything, with 2008-15 being particularly nightmarish. Andy was lucky that Roger was injured and Rafa not himself in 2016, and then Novak stumbled. But he capitalized, and that's what great players do - so no shame on him.

Looking at players born between 1990 to 1998 right now, Andy Murray would have feast on those players if he was born in 1997 not 1987.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Rafa and Novak may have had better singular years, but I'm more impressed with Federer stringing together 4 consecutive great years from 2004-2007. No one is ever going to beat that 4-year peak. Federer was clutch during those years, winning 11 out of the 16 slams played. He also compiled an 11-0 record in finals and didn't lose to anyone in the Top 10 in 2004, then followed that up with another 11 titles in 2005 and 12 titles in 2006.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with your order, although maybe because--unlike the other three--we never truly got to see a healthy, peak Del Potro. 2009 was a hint, but he was forever changed after that and never really was healthy enough and for long enough to reach his full potential. In other words, of the four you mention, he fell furthest from what we can speculate might have been his peak. I think we saw the best the other three were capable of, but not poor Delpo.

As you say, Stan's legacy is really three tournaments. Yes, they were Slams, but outside of those, and other brief moments, he was so inconsistent. He's an interesting player, both for the late breakout and because he was nigh unbeatable at times, beating the best of the best, but his inconsistency kept him from being truly great.

As for Andy, I actually put him in a similar category as Edberg and Wilander. I know, the Slam counts, but his overall accomplishments and level of play were similar, and 2015 was a truly great season - almost certainly the best single Slam season of the Open Era. A Slam title (and two finals), Tour Finals, Olympics Gold, three Masters, three ATP 500s - and that amazing run at the end of the year to steal #1 away from Novak. Just remarkable. Outside of that year, he was still the fourth best player behind three GOATs for most of a decade. As many have speculated, if he lived in almost any other era he likely would have won twice as many Slams.

I'm bored! Let me comment just to comment! It was amazing how Del Po was spoken of back then & the amount of respect he gets to this day even though he won only the one major; playing twice in the final of the USO! JMDP had a lethal FH that could scare the Big 3 & defeated them in Majors, Masters, & Olympics! IMO he was more a thorn in the side of Novak, taking him out of the Olympics twice; once in the 1st Rd. of Rio '16! Stan had more talent than most, but psychologically he was hurt by being in the shadow of Roger! He had such a time trying to defeat Fed even w/ a lead & MP's! OTTH, Stan may have nipped Roger once in a Masters final taking 2014 MC on clay! Wawrinka was more a problem to Djokovic winning all 3 of his majors defeating Novak on the way to his title! He got Nadal once in that 2014 AO final! People take away credit saying Nadal injured! Historians don't GAF; esp. me! Heaven knows Nadal may have benefitted by an opponent being hurt! Rafa was usually merciless running them from side to side jumping hoops to catch up w/ those crazy spinners! Murray should have won more but for his totally going defensive in his gameplan! He ran himself to death; esp. in that 2016 running Djokovic down to steal the YE #1 ranking! The man has a volley, but won't venture in unless he's down a set & a break! He had a nice early run against Roger winning 8 matches, but that didn't last! Fed turned it around and found a way to overcome the H2H deficit and took it over well before retiring, owning Murray his last few years on tour! Andy suk''d against Rafa and wasted his time even trying except maybe indoors on faster courts! He was more a headache for Novak winning 2 of his 3 majors against him! What an era! I never thought the generations w/ Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Vilas, & Wilander could be surpassed! Then we had Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, & Becker! I dare say Fedalovic will kill off the heights of tennis greatness & can only go downhill as they fade into history after 20 years of owning the ATP Tour!

 

[El Dude]

No one will ever match Djokovic's 2015! OTTH he played as "near perfect" as you can w/o taking everything that season! I thought his 2011 was safe as being the All Time top season for a male player, but I was wrong! He not only won 3 majors (SF FO) again, he played 8 Masters, winning 6 (2 finals), then capped it off w/ a YEC bettering his 2011 season! No wonder Nadal gives Novak a backhanded compliment about numbers! He never came close to that; even w/ his 2008, 2010, & 2013!

I agree with 2015 as being the best Open Era season, but would put Laver's 1969 and Roger's 2006 ahead of Novak's 2011...but that would be 4th best.

 

[El Dude]

I'm bored! Let me comment just to comment! It was amazing how Del Po was spoken of back then & the amount of respect he gets to this day even though he won only the one major; playing twice in the final of the USO! JMDP had a lethal FH that could scare the Big 3 & defeated them in Majors, Masters, & Olympics! IMO he was more a thorn in the side of Novak, taking him out of the Olympics twice; once in the 1st Rd. of Rio '16! Stan had more talent than most, but psychologically he was hurt by being in the shadow of Roger! He had such a time trying to defeat Fed even w/ a lead & MP's! OTTH, Stan may have nipped Roger once in a Masters final taking 2014 MC on clay! Wawrinka was more a problem to Djokovic winning all 3 of his majors defeating Novak on the way to his title! He got Nadal once in that 2014 AO final! People take away credit saying Nadal injured! Historians don't GAF; esp. me! Heaven knows Nadal may have benefitted by an opponent being hurt! Rafa was usually merciless running them from side to side jumping hoops to catch up w/ those crazy spinners! Murray should have won more but for his totally going defensive in his gameplan! He ran himself to death; esp. in that 2016 running Djokovic down to steal the YE #1 ranking! The man has a volley, but won't venture in unless he's down a set & a break! He had a nice early run against Roger winning 8 matches, but that didn't last! Fed turned it around and found a way to overcome the H2H deficit and took it over well before retiring, owning Murray his last few years on tour! Andy suk''d against Rafa and wasted his time even trying except maybe indoors on faster courts! He was more a headache for Novak winning 2 of his 3 majors against him! What an era! I never thought the generations w/ Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Vilas, & Wilander could be surpassed! Then we had Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, & Becker! I dare say Fedalovic will kill off the heights of tennis greatness & can only go downhill as they fade into history after 20 years of owning the ATP Tour!

I count 24 exclamation points! Well done, Fiero!

But please...yes, comment just to comment...that's the point, isn't it?

As I've said before, what stands out about the Big Three--and why they are the top three players of the Open Era (unless we count Laver's full career, then he's right there with them) is that they combined incredible longevity with very high peaks. I don't think they were better (for their time) than Borg or McEnroe at their best, but they just did it for longer - and then padded on a bunch of "lesser great" years that look like peak Edberg/Becker/Agassi. Meaning, their 6th, 7th best years would probably be the best of that lesser trio. You could say that Rafa is sort of like if Borg had the career longevity of Connors, Fed if Sampras had been any good on clay, and with greater longevity, Novak a super-sized version of Lendl who didn't punk out on grass and played another 5+ years? Sorta/kinda.

Anyhow, for years it looked like we'd never see a great player again. Next Gen was better than Lost Gen, but the best player--Medvedev--while very good, isn't really a true great. Depending upon how things go for him the rest of the way, his range is somewhere between Ivanisevic and Vilas. Along with Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev etc, it is a much better group than the sad lot of Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, etc...I kind of see Next Gen as being comparable to the group between Sampras and Federer. But despite that, Alcaraz and Sinner look to be potential ATGs in the making. Meaning, the Millenials are the best group since Novak/Fedal/Murray...at least at the top. We shouldn't expect GOATness, but I see both as being at least capable of reaching the accomplishments of the Edbergs and Beckers of the world. Who knows, maybe one or two of the younger guys emerging can join them. Go Fonzie!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

1. Laver 1969
2. Djokovic 2015
3. Federer 2006
4. Federer 2004
5. Djokovic 2011

 

[El Dude]

1. Laver 1969
2. Djokovic 2015
3. Federer 2006
4. Federer 2004
5. Djokovic 2011

I'd try to get Mac's 1984 in there. I know he "only" won two Slams, but it was 2 of 3, and he won just about everything else. Best Win%, too.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I count 24 exclamation points! Well done, Fiero!

But please...yes, comment just to comment...that's the point, isn't it?

As I've said before, what stands out about the Big Three--and why they are the top three players of the Open Era (unless we count Laver's full career, then he's right there with them) is that they combined incredible longevity with very high peaks. I don't think they were better (for their time) than Borg or McEnroe at their best, but they just did it for longer - and then padded on a bunch of "lesser great" years that look like peak Edberg/Becker/Agassi. Meaning, their 6th, 7th best years would probably be the best of that lesser trio. You could say that Rafa is sort of like if Borg had the career longevity of Connors, Fed if Sampras had been any good on clay, and with greater longevity, Novak a super-sized version of Lendl who didn't punk out on grass and played another 5+ years? Sorta/kinda.

Anyhow, for years it looked like we'd never see a great player again. Next Gen was better than Lost Gen, but the best player--Medvedev--while very good, isn't really a true great. Depending upon how things go for him the rest of the way, his range is somewhere between Ivanisevic and Vilas. Along with Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev etc, it is a much better group than the sad lot of Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitrov, etc...I kind of see Next Gen as being comparable to the group between Sampras and Federer. But despite that, Alcaraz and Sinner look to be potential ATGs in the making. Meaning, the Millenials are the best group since Novak/Fedal/Murray...at least at the top. We shouldn't expect GOATness, but I see both as being at least capable of reaching the accomplishments of the Edbergs and Beckers of the world. Who knows, maybe one or two of the younger guys emerging can join them. Go Fonzie!

Wouldn't Alcaraz and Sinner be like Gen Z, El Dude?

I am just messing with you, El Dude

 

[shawnbm]

I'd try to get Mac's 1984 in there. I know he "only" won two Slams, but it was 2 of 3, and he won just about everything else. Best Win%, too.

Well, he lost the third one in Paris after being up two sets--a true shocker at the time. It jumpstarted Ivan the Terrible' s career obviously, and led to the slow decline from the top of Mac. He seemed almost invincible and had not lost a match all year when he met Lendl in the final of RG.

 

[El Dude]

Wouldn't Alcaraz and Sinner be like Gen Z, El Dude?

I am just messing with you, El Dude

Ha. BUt yes, absolutely - I was using the term "Millenial" not in the non-tennis way, but specific to the cohort after "Next Gen," which I see as born in 94-98 (so the youngest millenials). The Millenial Gen of tennis players would be 99-03ish...so De Minaur to Alcaraz/Rune, with FAA and Sinner sandwiched in-between.