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

[Fiero425]

I hope history records it 20 titles 3 headed GOAT.. period..

Oh, like the mythological Hell dog, Cerberus? Novak's head would be in the "middle" & a little bigger!

 

[Moxie]

This gives a much broader picture of the GOAT debate when you break it down this way.

AO GOAT - Djokovic
French Open GOAT - Nadal
Wimbledon GOAT - Federer
US Open GOAT - Federer

No one is winning 14 French Open titles or 5 consecutive US Open titles ever again. 10 AOs (and possibly more) is likely out of reach also. All crazy records.

Not to spoil your fun, but since you felt compelled to drag out the old doping accusations, I'm not going to feel that bad. I don't see how 10 AOs is more reachable than 5 consecutive US Opens. Yes, "consecutive" IS the key word, and the US Open comes late in the season. I know the arguments. But it's not untouchable, IMO. For 8-10+ at a single Major, you first have to play them 10+ times, which is already a lot, and you have to keep dominating. It's not inconceivable that another player could have a run of dominance, and get a bit lucky, with lesser competition, or something. You can call Federer the USO GOAT, if you like, but he also never won another after his streak. I'd say, between the 3, there isn't one.

 

[Front242]

Not to spoil your fun, but since you felt compelled to drag out the old doping accusations, I'm not going to feel that bad. I don't see how 10 AOs is more reachable than 5 consecutive US Opens. Yes, "consecutive" IS the key word, and the US Open comes late in the season. I know the arguments. But it's not untouchable, IMO. For 8-10+ at a single Major, you first have to play them 10+ times, which is already a lot, and you have to keep dominating. It's not inconceivable that another player could have a run of dominance, and get a bit lucky, with lesser competition, or something. You can call Federer the USO GOAT, if you like, but he also never won another after his streak. I'd say, between the 3, there isn't one.

No one has won back to back US Opens since Federer and he won them when it was a much better speed and surface too and not the slow crap it is now. Kevin Anderson wouldn't have lost to Nadal if that was 2004-2008 speed either. So, yes, it's untouchable no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise. Winning 6 with none consecutive wouldn't be as good as 5 in a row either.

 

[Moxie]

No one has won back to back US Opens since Federer and he won them when it was a much better speed and surface too and not the slow crap it is now. Kevin Anderson wouldn't have lost to Nadal if that was 2004-2008 speed either. So, yes, it's untouchable no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise. Winning 6 with none consecutive wouldn't be as good as 5 in a row either.

OMG, now we're back to the surface arguments. The US Open has been played in the Open Era on grass, clay and HCs. Conners won it on each of the 3 surfaces. How's that for dominating the US Open? I did say that consecutive wins mean something, but it's only five. That's much more attainable than the others. You can count them on one hand. I simply don't think it will never happen again. It's attainable.

 

[Fiero425]

OMG, now we're back to the surface arguments. The US Open has been played in the Open Era on grass, clay and HCs. Conners won it on each of the 3 surfaces. How's that for dominating the US Open? I did say that consecutive wins mean something, but it's only five. That's much more attainable than the others. You can count them on one hand. I simply don't think it will never happen again. It's attainable.

OTTH, only Wilander comes close taking the AO on grass in '83 & '84, then won it a few yrs. later on HC in '88! What Connors did can't be matched! ;-)

 

[Front242]

OMG, now we're back to the surface arguments. The US Open has been played in the Open Era on grass, clay and HCs. Conners won it on each of the 3 surfaces. How's that for dominating the US Open? I did say that consecutive wins mean something, but it's only five. That's much more attainable than the others. You can count them on one hand. I simply don't think it will never happen again. It's attainable.

One more time, you realize no one has even won it back to back twice in a row since 2008? But somehow now it's only 5! Hilarious. Let's see if anyone can even win 2 in a row for a start. 16 years and no one has...

 

[Moxie]

One more time, you realize no one has even won it back to back twice in a row since 2008? But somehow now it's only 5! Hilarious. Let's see if anyone can even win 2 in a row for a start. 16 years and no one has...

I understand the history, and I can read how Connors and McEnroe traded years. And both won it back to back. Between 1974 and 1984 Connors and McEnroe won 9 of those titles. 2008 isn't when tennis began. What I'm saying is that it's the least impossible of the options you're offering. Who knows what the future holds? Right?

 

[El Dude]

This gives a much broader picture of the GOAT debate when you break it down this way.

AO GOAT - Djokovic
French Open GOAT - Nadal
Wimbledon GOAT - Federer
US Open GOAT - Federer

No one is winning 14 French Open titles or 5 consecutive US Open titles ever again. 10 AOs (and possibly more) is likely out of reach also. All crazy records.

I hate to pick on a fellow Fed fan, but this is rather biased framing. I think you can make an argument that Roger has the best overall record at Wimbledon and the US Open, but it is by a much slimmer margin than Novak at the AO and Rafa at RG. So writing it like you did, makes it seem like Roger is the GOAT at twice as many Slams than the other two, when relative dominance is also a factor.

 

[shawnbm]

I understand the history, and I can read how Connors and McEnroe traded years. And both won it back to back. Between 1974 and 1984 Connors and McEnroe won 9 of those titles. 2008 isn't when tennis began. What I'm saying is that it's the least impossible of the options you're offering. Who knows what the future holds? Right?

Watching Connors and McEnroe play at the US Open is as good as any tennis ever in my humble opinion. There was crackling energy whenever those two apex predator players faced off.

 

[Moxie]

I hate to pick on a fellow Fed fan, but this is rather biased framing. I think you can make an argument that Roger has the best overall record at Wimbledon and the US Open, but it is by a much slimmer margin than Novak at the AO and Rafa at RG. So writing it like you did, makes it seem like Roger is the GOAT at twice as many Slams than the other two, when relative dominance is also a factor.

I agree with you on Front's assessment. Let's face it: Roger picked off a couple of his pigeons at the USO in Hewitt and Roddick, an aged Agassi, and two underaged in Djokovic and Murray. It was an opportunistic run. Which means it can happen again. I think you've done a post about this, but IS the USOpen really the hardest to repeat?

Obviously, between the 3 of them, I think it's unfair to call Federer the leader, much less the GOAT. Look at the H2H between them at the USO. Such a shame that Roger and Rafa never got to play against each other there.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with you on Front's assessment. Let's face it: Roger picked off a couple of his pigeons at the USO in Hewitt and Roddick, an aged Agassi, and two underaged in Djokovic and Murray. It was an opportunistic run. Which means it can happen again. I think you've done a post about this, but IS the USOpen really the hardest to repeat?

Obviously, between the 3 of them, I think it's unfair to call Federer the leader, much less the GOAT. Look at the H2H between them at the USO. Such a shame that Roger and Rafa never got to play against each other there.

See, I wouldn't go the other way and start undermining what Roger did accomplish. Hewitt and Roddick weren't exactly "pigeons" - they were really good players, but Roger was just much better - so they might have been his pigeons, but they were still top players back then. And of course you can only beat who you play, so saying Roger "only" beat those guys isn't really a negative, just not a bonus, so to speak.

But where I agree with you is the false equivalency of putting Roger's five consecutive USO titles on a similar level as Rafa's 14 Roland Garros titles or Novak's 10 AO titles. Front didn't necessarily outright say that, but his framing implied it. Roger's five is very, very impressive - but nowhere near on the level of Rafa's dominance at RG. It is a false equivalency, imo.

As for whether the US Open is hardest to repeat, I can't remember what I found, but no player has one any Slam more than five times in a row - once by Borg, twice by Roger, and once by Rafa. Here's a chart that shows only consecutive Slams win, so we get a visual sense:

Any patterns to discern? Well, looking at the USO the big standout is the fact that no one has won it in consecutive years since Roger's streak - that's a span of 15 tournaments. Does that mean anything? Not necessarily. I mean, of those 15 titles, Rafa and Novak own four each, but just none consecutively. The other 7 are owned by Del Potro, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka, Thiem, Medvedev, and Alcaraz.

Now it may be meaningful that so many of the non-Big Three Slams were won at the USO. From 2004 to 2023, the Big Three have won 65 of 79 Slams. Of the other 14, half are at the USO. Again, is that meaningful? Maybe, maybe not. I'd say it is mostly due to Rafa owning Roland Garros, Novak owning the AO (with help from Roger), and Roger and Novak co-owning Wimbledon. Meaning, it might have more to do with their dominance on those three courts than it does the USO being particularly special.

We could ask why Novak or Rafa haven't put together a streak at the USO and might be tempted to say "each other." But that isn't the case - interestingly enough, only once did either end the other's chance at a potential streak, when Novak beat Rafa in 2011. Novak then lost to Andy in 2012, and after Rafa beat Novak in 2013, he didn't play it in 2014 and went out to Fognini in the 3rd round of 2015. Rafa won it in 17 and 19, but lost to Del Potro in the SF in 2018 (retiring down two sets). After Novak won in 2018, he lost to Stan in the 4R of 2018, also retiring. Novak will have a chance to win two in a row this year, of course.

Back to the general picture, here are the number of streaks at each Slam in the Open Era, not counting number of years, just streaks:

AO 13
RG 10
Wimbledon 10
USO 7

Now here are the years that were involved in streaks:
AO 28
RG 29
WIM 31
USO 19

That implies that the USO is a bit harder to repeat, but not enormously so - just enough to make it significant. But again, what does that mean? I'm not sure it means anything. It could be an anomaly, or it could have something to do with being the last Slam of the year.

Is Roger's five-year streak, two longer than anyone else, an impressive feat? Absolutely. Does it automatically make him the USO goat? Not necessarily, in my opinion. He may be, but again the margin is very slim, with a bunch of guys not far behind - Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Rafa, and Novak are all close. If Roger is still the Wimbledon GOAT, it is also close with Sampras and Novak very close, and Borg not terribly far off. But Novak's lead at the AO is much larger, and Rafa's absolutely unassailable.

 

[El Dude]

Addendum: I'm not even sure that I'd call Roger the GOAT at the USO. Sampras won just as many, and while Novak has won one fewer, he's appeared in 10 finals - three more than Roger. Connors has only won one fewer, and appeared in just one less final and tied with Novak for 13 semi-finals -- three more than Roger.

If Novak wins another, I think he gets the crown. But either way, it is a crowded field and more to the point, it is arguable who is the "US Open GOAT." I'd probably put them in tiers - Roger, Novak, and Pete as co-GOATs, with Connors not far behind.

Similarly with Wimbledon. Roger still has the edge - not just +1 wins, but +3 finals (he's 8-4, Novak is 7-2, Sampras 7-0). But Novak and Pete are very close.

The same is not true of Roland Garros or the AO. Rafa has two more RG titles than any three players combined and while Roger is the clear #2 at the AO, but he's still a good distance behind Novak.

 

[Front242]

I agree with you on Front's assessment. Let's face it: Roger picked off a couple of his pigeons at the USO in Hewitt and Roddick, an aged Agassi, and two underaged in Djokovic and Murray. It was an opportunistic run. Which means it can happen again. I think you've done a post about this, but IS the USOpen really the hardest to repeat?

Obviously, between the 3 of them, I think it's unfair to call Federer the leader, much less the GOAT. Look at the H2H between them at the USO. Such a shame that Roger and Rafa never got to play against each other there.

Of course you think it's unfair. Any Federer is better than Nadal talk is like Biden v Trump. The truth hurts when it comes to Federer at the USO. Btw Kevin Anderson says hi.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

More impressive than winning 5 US Opens in a row (and that feat is impressive) is the fact that Roger won 11 (out of 16) slams in 2004-2007. If any achievement ranks right there with Rafa's 14 French Open titles, it's that one. Nadal and Djokovic had a hard time stringing together consecutive great seasons. Roger strung together 4 consecutive such seasons.

 

[El Dude]

More impressive than winning 5 US Opens in a row (and that feat is impressive) is the fact that Roger won 11 (out of 16) slams in 2004-2007. If any achievement ranks right there with Rafa's 14 French Open titles, it's that one. Nadal and Djokovic had a hard time stringing together consecutive great seasons. Roger strung together 4 consecutive such seasons.

Yes, this. Roger's 2004-07 run is the best four-year span in Open Era history. His best three-year span (either 2004-06 or 05-07) starts having rivals, but not the four years.

 

[Moxie]

Addendum: I'm not even sure that I'd call Roger the GOAT at the USO. Sampras won just as many, and while Novak has won one fewer, he's appeared in 10 finals - three more than Roger. Connors has only won one fewer, and appeared in just one less final and tied with Novak for 13 semi-finals -- three more than Roger.

If Novak wins another, I think he gets the crown. But either way, it is a crowded field and more to the point, it is arguable who is the "US Open GOAT." I'd probably put them in tiers - Roger, Novak, and Pete as co-GOATs, with Connors not far behind.

Here is a thing we disagree on: you give lots of points for SFs and finals. If we're talking about anything like GOATness, it has to be wins, not just consistency, or getting really close, IMO. I don't know how you'd give it to Novak with one more, which would tie him with Roger, but non-consecutive?

Personally, I don't think every Major has to have a GOAT. If the US Open doesn't, why force it?

Also, and don't give me the side-eye: no mention of Rafa, who has the same number of USO's as Novak? He did beat a pretty peak Novak to win 2 of them.

Similarly with Wimbledon. Roger still has the edge - not just +1 wins, but +3 finals (he's 8-4, Novak is 7-2, Sampras 7-0). But Novak and Pete are very close.

Roger DOES have the edge, and 5 consecutive does matter. There's no hugely dominant one between the 3, but isn't it Roger, Pete, then Novak? Or are you still giving weight to the finals that Novak made? 7-0 in finals is pretty sweet. And Pete quit playing at 31.

The same is not true of Roland Garros or the AO. Rafa has two more RG titles than any three players combined and while Roger is the clear #2 at the AO, but he's still a good distance behind Novak.

To my point, if it's clear, we can acknowledge it. If it's not so clear, there doesn't have to be one...or yet.

 

[Moxie]

Of course you think it's unfair. Any Federer is better than Nadal talk is like Biden v Trump. The truth hurts when it comes to Federer at the USO. Btw Kevin Anderson says hi.

I apologize for calling Roddick and Hewitt "pigeons," as @El Dude called me out for, and I meant to say to him. I was reading too much of Fiero's incendiary posts, and I was being rude. Both were solid players, though not ATG's. Hewitt actually dominated their h2h early on, when Rusty was a gritty phenom, and Roger hadn't yet reached his heights.

I made my points above about the US Open. Yes, Roger had a great run. And I'm not discounting that 5 consecutive is not huge...did I ever say that? Only that I said it was attainable again. I'm just saying you don't have to have a GOAT for the USO if there isn't one.

Another thing we should face, if we look at these draws, and not just final opponents, is who they faced. There was a long time...a really long time...when mostly we just waited for 2 of the big 3 to meet in the final, of whatever Major. The rest seemed to be separating the wheat from the chaff, and just getting there. And often, it was. Well, not as much when Roger was winning a lot of Majors, early on, before there was a Big 3, but you get the idea. So, when Rafa got Kevin Anderson in the final in 2017, that's because Roger missed the date. He lost to Delpo, and Rafa still had to go through Del Potro, the guy who beat Roger, so...it's the best you can hope for. Likewise in 2019. Djokovic bailed due to injury, and he was in Roger's half, clearing the way. But Roger lost to Dimitrov. Again, he failed to make the date. But Roger and Novak were both in the draw.

IMO, the US Open doesn't have a GOAT.

 

[El Dude]

Here is a thing we disagree on: you give lots of points for SFs and finals. If we're talking about anything like GOATness, it has to be wins, not just consistency, or getting really close, IMO. I don't know how you'd give it to Novak with one more, which would tie him with Roger, but non-consecutive?

I hear your point, and we're probably not as far apart as a binary yes or no to the question "do SF/Fs matter or not," but more a matter of degree - I think they matter more than you do (as far as assessing greatness is concerned). But I am also sympathetic with the view that, in sports, a win is a win, and anything else is a loss, which is why I actually have two nerdy systems I play with - not just PEP, but also Title Shares (TS) which gives points only for titles, and is heavily weighted towards Slams. So it gives somewhat different results.

But tennis is a funny game. Yes, you can draw a line between winners and everyone else, but matches matter - especially SFs and Fs. Reaching and losing in the final of a Slam is an impressive feat; so much so that the ATP gives more points for it than any other result other than Slam wins and Tour Finals titles. Similarly, finishing the year #2 matters - it isn't #1 and everyone else. #2 could be very close to #1, just as a runner-up at a tournament played better than everyone else but one player, and might have just lost to that player by a hair. In some cases, the #2 player was actually better than the #1 player that year, but simply played less.

So I toggle back and forth between PEP and TS, to get different views on the same phenomena. PEP gives more credit to consistent results, while TS emphasizes titles, especially Slams. When comparing players and years, I tend to average them out, and find that splits the difference between the "two logics" nicely.

Personally, I don't think every Major has to have a GOAT. If the US Open doesn't, why force it?

Yep, agreed.

Also, and don't give me the side-eye: no mention of Rafa, who has the same number of USO's as Novak? He did beat a pretty peak Novak to win 2 of them.

OK, that aside, I rate Novak higher than Rafa because he was more consistent. They both won 4 USOs, but Novak was the runner-up six times vs. Rafa's one. Those 5 extra finals matter (imo), if only as the tie-breaker. Obviously Rafa is up there, I just think Novak gets a solid edge over him, and Connors a slight edge. Rafa would be 5th at the USO, imo, with Mac 6th.

Roger DOES have the edge, and 5 consecutive does matter. There's no hugely dominant one between the 3, but isn't it Roger, Pete, then Novak? Or are you still giving weight to the finals that Novak made? 7-0 in finals is pretty sweet. And Pete quit playing at 31.

Yes, I do give value for the finals. To me, 7-2 is better than 7-0 (all other things being equal). But consider also that Novak beat Roger at Wimbledon - three times. Sampras beat some excellent grass players at Wimbledon, but no one like Roger. As for Pete retiring at 31, well, you can't give him credit for not playing longer (this is Borg's problem, too).

That said, I do recognize that Pete's record at Wimbledon has its merits - winning 7 of 8 is something that Roger didn't even do (it took him his 10th try after his first to win his 7th). Novak "only" won 7 of 11 (not counting 2020). But again, while Novak never beat Roger at Wimbledon during his best years, and he lost to Roger in 2012 when he had reached his peak level and Roger had lost half a step, but he still did beat Roger when he was a great player - three times.

But all of this is nitpicking. I think Roger still gets the edge, and Novak and Pete fill out the top 3 in some form or fashion. Perhaps a more interesting question is who was better on grass, Rafa or Andy...

 

[El Dude]

I apologize for calling Roddick and Hewitt "pigeons," as @El Dude called me out for, and I meant to say to him. I was reading too much of Fiero's incendiary posts, and I was being rude. Both were solid players, though not ATG's. Hewitt actually dominated their h2h early on, when Rusty was a gritty phenom, and Roger hadn't yet reached his heights.

I made my points above about the US Open. Yes, Roger had a great run. And I'm not discounting that 5 consecutive is not huge...did I ever say that? Only that I said it was attainable again. I'm just saying you don't have to have a GOAT for the USO if there isn't one.

Another thing we should face, if we look at these draws, and not just final opponents, is who they faced. There was a long time...a really long time...when mostly we just waited for 2 of the big 3 to meet in the final, of whatever Major. The rest seemed to be separating the wheat from the chaff, and just getting there. And often, it was. Well, not as much when Roger was winning a lot of Majors, early on, before there was a Big 3, but you get the idea. So, when Rafa got Kevin Anderson in the final in 2017, that's because Roger missed the date. He lost to Delpo, and Rafa still had to go through Del Potro, the guy who beat Roger, so...it's the best you can hope for. Likewise in 2019. Djokovic bailed due to injury, and he was in Roger's half, clearing the way. But Roger lost to Dimitrov. Again, he failed to make the date. But Roger and Novak were both in the draw.

IMO, the US Open doesn't have a GOAT.

I'm reminded of a blog article I wrote years ago, the "Herd of GOATs" or somesuch. It was playing with the idea that because of the problem of comparing across eras, GOATness was best understand as a herd rather than a singular entity.

Not to repeat what I think we agree on, but with RG it is easy: there is no question who is the GOAT (and Borg gets the nod as the first RG GOAT, who was surpassed by Rafa - but still a solid #2). The AO is also easy. And in fact, Roland Garros and the AO have both a clear #1 and #2.

Wimbledon is less immediately obvious, and starts getting into "herdness." Or to put it another way, even if Roger still has the edge, you can't talk about Wimbledon GOATness without mentioning Pete and Novak (and imagine if Novak wins #8...could we really say that he was on the same level as Roger?). So we have a clear top 3, but only a somewhat clear #1, and the order of #2-3 are debatable.

The USO is the least clear. Not only is there no singular title leader, but there are a bunch of guys within 1 Slam of the leaders.

Or if we look at only titles, we get:

AO: Novak 10, Roger 6, Agassi 4, Wilander 3, ten guys with 2
RG: Rafa 14, Borg 6, four guys with 3
WIM: Roger 8, Pete/Novak 7, Borg 5, Becker/Mac 3, six guys with 2
USO: Connors/Sampras/Roger 5, Mac/Rafa/Novak 4, Lendl 3, three guys with 2

As you know, I also value QF, SF, and F results. But I think one quick way to start the conversation is that if a player has +2 at any Slam, it is clear GOATdom. If it is +1 or less, you have to look at other factors. So at the AO and RG, we have a clear #1 and #2. Not so clear in the case of Wimbledon and not clear at all with the USO. We have a clear top 4 at Wimbledon, and we have groups at the USO, but it is a bit of a mess.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a question: Who will have a better career, Arthur Fils or Jakob Mensik? Obviously there's no way to answer that yet, but it does seem that Mensik is about where Fils was a year or so ago - and he's actually 15 months younger.

Actually, Fils broke into the top 100 on May 29 of last year, a week before his 19th birthday, after winning his first (and only) title at Lyon. Mensik has already broken into the top 100, but has yet to win his first title, but doesn't turn 19 until September. So he's actually a bit ahead of Fils at the same age (Fils was his age in late 2022, which he finished at #251...so his rise only happened after the age Mensik is now).