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

[the AntiPusher]

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).

Fils will be the better player.. confidence is everything!

 

[Moxie]

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.


Yep, agreed.

View attachment 9419

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.


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...

First, let me say the "side-eye" illustration made me laugh really hard.

Also, I do see that we're not far off, in terms of what going deep in a tournament means, even if you don't win it. That's where the rankings come from. I can also see why you use finalists as tie-breakers. Fair enough. But to your "Herd of GOATS" post, also above, this is why I agree with it so much: Aside from everything else the Big 3 have done, they had much longer careers than many of their predecessors. (A lot of factors, which have been discussed.) But so, they've definitely still gone deep, even with falling short in the final. It's one of the many things that makes comparisons across eras difficult. And why, at a certain point, you stop trying, and say you've got a "herd" of them.

I rewatched "Moneyball" the other night. (Love that movie!) When I read this post, I thought of it. Brad Pitt's Billy Bean was adamant that if you lose the last game of the season, you lost. Period. The Jonah Hill character tried to convince him that there was more to it than that. Leaving off "life lessons," I think we both see the nuance within. We agree that it's sports, and it's the W that matters most. It's the difference in the value of 2nd or 3rd best that we could natter over. Being a baseball stats guy, I bet you love that movie, too. I bring it up for the fun of it. I lean a bit Billy Bean, but I'm not intractable on the point.

 

[Moxie]

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).

I fear you will jinx them both. Isn't it a bit early? I agree with @the AntiPusher that Fils has a lot of upside and is a great athlete. I'd buy on him. I have no feel yet for Mensik. I'm buying on Fonseca and there are a few other young ones out there. But great-seeming teenagers can also go nowhere, in the Bigs. While Felix Auger-Aliassime and Denis Shapavolov are having OK careers, they're not fulfilling potential. And what about other teenagers we had our eyes on? Sebastian Korda is not where I hoped he'd be. Borna Coric? Anyone remember Bernard Tomic? The transition to the Show is not something every player manages well. Or a bit of flash, and then they find their high-watermark, which is just a decent career, at best.

 

[El Dude]

I fear you will jinx them both. Isn't it a bit early? I agree with @the AntiPusher that Fils has a lot of upside and is a great athlete. I'd buy on him. I have no feel yet for Mensik. I'm buying on Fonseca and there are a few other young ones out there. But great-seeming teenagers can also go nowhere, in the Bigs. While Felix Auger-Aliassime and Denis Shapavolov are having OK careers, they're not fulfilling potential. And what about other teenagers we had our eyes on? Sebastian Korda is not where I hoped he'd be. Borna Coric? Anyone remember Bernard Tomic? The transition to the Show is not something every player manages well. Or a bit of flash, and then they find their high-watermark, which is just a decent career, at best.

I don't think it is too early to speculate, at least on what I'm asking - and hopefully I didn't give the impression that I was expecting greatness from either. My question is only who will be better; that is, who has the most potential and best chance of actualizing it, not how good they'll become. I agree that it is too early to have any idea about that. But we can look at both, and speculate on who has more upside and the mentality to actualize it.

As we've talked about before, promising prospects are far more likely (like 99%+) to be Gasquet than Nadal, and of course Gasquet is no slouch, taking all players into account. And of course there's the Tomics and Shapovalovs of the world, who are a solid tier or two below Gasquet. Mensik and Fils should be happy if they have the career Gasquet have, although of course they hope for much more.

 

[shawnbm]

Connors won as many USO as Federer and Sampras--5

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I'm not sold on Fils. I've watched them all play, and I already believe that Fonseca and Mensik are better than Fils.

 

[El Dude]

First, let me say the "side-eye" illustration made me laugh really hard.

Also, I do see that we're not far off, in terms of what going deep in a tournament means, even if you don't win it. That's where the rankings come from. I can also see why you use finalists as tie-breakers. Fair enough. But to your "Herd of GOATS" post, also above, this is why I agree with it so much: Aside from everything else the Big 3 have done, they had much longer careers than many of their predecessors. (A lot of factors, which have been discussed.) But so, they've definitely still gone deep, even with falling short in the final. It's one of the many things that makes comparisons across eras difficult. And why, at a certain point, you stop trying, and say you've got a "herd" of them.

Regarding your remark about the longevity of the Big 3, I think that is what sets them apart from, say, McEnroe and Borg. In their time, Mac and Borg were similarly dominant - that is, in terms of how good they were relative to the field. But both were only great for eight years, and only super-dominant for a few. The Big Three have more or less doubled that, in both ranges (great/prime and super-dominant/peak). In other words, the Big 3 were/are as good as Mac and Borg, but for twice as long (or more), which makes them greater, imo.

I rewatched "Moneyball" the other night. (Love that movie!) When I read this post, I thought of it. Brad Pitt's Billy Bean was adamant that if you lose the last game of the season, you lost. Period. The Jonah Hill character tried to convince him that there was more to it than that. Leaving off "life lessons," I think we both see the nuance within. We agree that it's sports, and it's the W that matters most. It's the difference in the value of 2nd or 3rd best that we could natter over. Being a baseball stats guy, I bet you love that movie, too. I bring it up for the fun of it. I lean a bit Billy Bean, but I'm not intractable on the point.

I saw that shortly after it came out - definitely a good flick. As a baseball guy, and a stat-nerd, it was interesting to see that Jonah Hill's character was actually the driver behind the stats. Among baseball fans, Beane was known for innovating use of stats - but it was really him just listening to the nerd. But more than anything, Beane was good at finding hidden value, and optimizing it to field very good teams, despite having low payroll. He did this by looking at statistics like On-Base Percentage, and valuing it over Batting Average. People weren't really doing that until after his time, so he was able to find guys more easily. Harder to do today, because the cat is out of the bag.

Meaning, Beane success was at least partially due to finding a balance between his approach and that of the Jonah Hill guy; without Hill, he wouldn't have been as successful.

Anyhow, as I said I think both views have value, and that considering both is better than one or the other. Thus my use of two systems. As I've said, PEP gives points for "premier" event results - at an ATP 250, only a title, at an ATP 500, a title and finalist, etc, with corresponding point values roughly corresponding to ATP point ratios (though a bit more weighted for Slams). Title Shares only gives points for actual titles won, and are even more heavily weighted towards Slams. In that sense, I think TS would be preferred to many here, because it correlates more with the more prevalent view (e.g. Slams weighted more heavily than ATP point equivalents). Maybe I'll do a post on TS, as I don't think I've shared it before.

Another system I like using is something along the lines of "ATP Points %" - meaning, what percentage of ATP points did a player earn of the tournaments they entered - sort of like the tennis version of batting average and similar percentile statistics. I prefer this to Win%, because it weighs the tournament values. But it is a bit of a hassle to calculate, so I only have it for some players and seasons.

 

[El Dude]

Back to Fils vs. Mensik, after watching some Mensik tape, I'm buying big-time on him. He looks VERY impressive. He has a domineering quality that reminds me a bit of Stanimal or Safin. He looks like the unicorn of the big guy with massive firepower, who can also play move and defense. To me he's snuck up behind only Sinner, Alcaraz and Rune as the top young player on tour, in terms of upside. If Rune doesn't get his act together, Mensik could blow past him. I see a similar talent level.

The wildcard is Fonseca, as he's really too soon to tell (does he have any ATP matches off clay?), and then Fils. I like Fils, but for some reason I don't see him on the same level in terms of upside. He looks more like a Berdych/Tsonga type. No shame in that, but the other guys are either all elite or have elite potential.

So Sinner/Alcaraz at the top, then Rune/Mensik, depending upon how Rune is going forward and how Mensik's game develops. Then Fonseca as the unknown wildcard--still not sure if he's a clay-only specialist. Then a step down to Fils, then everyone else (Van Assche, etc). Not sure where to put Shelton. Maybe in a similar category as Fils.

 

[El Dude]

To answer my question, Fonseca hasn't played any ATP level matches off clay, which isn't surprising as he only joined the ATP tour this year, but has still only stuck with clay. He played a couple matches at a Challenger on hards last year -- won one, lost the other -- and one way back in 2021 when he was 15 (he got double-bageled by #680...but again, he was 15).

 

[Moxie]

Back to Fils vs. Mensik, after watching some Mensik tape, I'm buying big-time on him. He looks VERY impressive. He has a domineering quality that reminds me a bit of Stanimal or Safin. He looks like the unicorn of the big guy with massive firepower, who can also play move and defense. To me he's snuck up behind only Sinner, Alcaraz and Rune as the top young player on tour, in terms of upside. If Rune doesn't get his act together, Mensik could blow past him. I see a similar talent level.

The wildcard is Fonseca, as he's really too soon to tell (does he have any ATP matches off clay?), and then Fils. I like Fils, but for some reason I don't see him on the same level in terms of upside. He looks more like a Berdych/Tsonga type. No shame in that, but the other guys are either all elite or have elite potential.

So Sinner/Alcaraz at the top, then Rune/Mensik, depending upon how Rune is going forward and how Mensik's game develops. Then Fonseca as the unknown wildcard--still not sure if he's a clay-only specialist. Then a step down to Fils, then everyone else (Van Assche, etc). Not sure where to put Shelton. Maybe in a similar category as Fils.

I do appreciate you scouting the youngsters. I think it's early to predict about some of them, but hey, why not give a prediction? I like Fils, though, and I'm not ready to relegate him to 2nd tier status. He has got a lot of Tsonga in him, and in a different era, Tsonga would have fared better. And we're heading for a different era. Also, and not to spoil the party, let's look back to those who failed to meet expectations: Bernard Tomic, Borna Coric and Alexandre Dolgopolov come to mind. (I'm sure there are other examples.) It's a huge leap for teenagers/young players from challengers to Pro, and some make it, some don't. Those 3 failed for very different reasons, and only Coric is still in the game.

 

[rafanoy1992]

It is too soon to tell on how Fils, Fonseca and Mensik will do especially neither one of them are in their 20's yet (Fils will turn 20 yrs old next month).

Quick notes on all of them: It seems like Fils is having a sophomore slump this year. After winning his maiden title last year, he has "struggled" to do well in tournaments this year. But even with all the struggles this year, he is ranked no. 32 (career-high) and he is only turning 20 years old, so he has a lot of time to improve his game.

As for Mensik, he seems like the real deal. But not surprisingly, his body is struggling to keep up with the grind of the tour so far. He has now two retirements (arm problems) since his run at IW. Hopefully, he is able to adjust to the physical grind of the tour. He is only 18.5 years old so he has time to develop physically.

Finally, Fonseca looks spectacular especially his FH. However, I want to see on how he fares outside of Clay before I truly judge his game.

 

[El Dude]

I very much am aware of the danger of predicting greatness too soon - hope I didn't give the impression otherwise. Right now I'm just speculating on upside, and for me Fils is below Mensik and Fonseca, both of whom have "wowed" me on first impression, while Fils hasn't quite grabbed me in the same way. But I like the "Tsonga in an easier era" comp. I mean, Rublev is about on the Tsonga/Berdych level, and now has 2 Masters at age 26, and looks like he could win more. Berdych only has the one at age 21, losing in 14 semis and 3 finals, and of course was a frequent loser to one of the Big Four in Slams. Tsonga won two Masters, but his second was at age 29. Those two were every big as good as Marin Cilic, but never could quite get over the hump - and along with Ferrer, were all as good or better than some of the guys who won Slams in weaker eras (Gaudio, Edmondson, Costa, Edmondson, Teacher come most readily to mind).

 

[Moxie]

I very much am aware of the danger of predicting greatness too soon - hope I didn't give the impression otherwise. Right now I'm just speculating on upside, and for me Fils is below Mensik and Fonseca, both of whom have "wowed" me on first impression, while Fils hasn't quite grabbed me in the same way. But I like the "Tsonga in an easier era" comp. I mean, Rublev is about on the Tsonga/Berdych level, and now has 2 Masters at age 26, and looks like he could win more. Berdych only has the one at age 21, losing in 14 semis and 3 finals, and of course was a frequent loser to one of the Big Four in Slams. Tsonga won two Masters, but his second was at age 29. Those two were every big as good as Marin Cilic, but never could quite get over the hump - and along with Ferrer, were all as good or better than some of the guys who won Slams in weaker eras (Gaudio, Edmondson, Costa, Edmondson, Teacher come most readily to mind).

Oh, I know you know that it's early to predict. That's why I admire you doing it. I respond for the sake of conversation, so as not to leave such an intriguing post dangling. I just mentioned a few cautionary examples, for the sake of argument.

I'm glad you like my Tsonga comparison, to Fils, not just because it's a bit obvious (because they're both French,) but also apt, I think. You wondered about Ben Shelton, and he seems to me of that ilk: brawny, athletic, big serve, big personality. If you were to have asked me pre-2014, who of Tsonga/Berdych/Cilic would win a Major, Cilic would have been my last choice. Now, we're moving into a post Big 3 era, and a lot more big titles will likely be open to more of the field. I don't see two or 3 players closing ranks on the top spots any time soon.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, I know you know that it's early to predict. That's why I admire you doing it. I respond for the sake of conversation, so as not to leave such an intriguing post dangling. I just mentioned a few cautionary examples, for the sake of argument.

I'm glad you like my Tsonga comparison, to Fils, not just because it's a bit obvious (because they're both French,) but also apt, I think. You wondered about Ben Shelton, and he seems to me of that ilk: brawny, athletic, big serve, big personality. If you were to have asked me pre-2014, who of Tsonga/Berdych/Cilic would win a Major, Cilic would have been my last choice. Now, we're moving into a post Big 3 era, and a lot more big titles will likely be open to more of the field. I don't see two or 3 players closing ranks on the top spots any time soon.

I hope we find a happy medium between the late 90s/early 00s and the Big Four Hegemony...I think we will (and already are).

One of the questions I have is if Alcaraz is just having a post-rise plateau--sort of like Rafa in 2006-07--as he consolidates, or if he might not be as good as we thought. I suspect the former, but I'm also convinced that Sinner is (and will continue to be) his equal, and the gap between those two and everyone else will be less extreme than the previous era. So it should be an interesting next period, with a nice range of talents.

 

[Front242]

Needs to be said that Tsonga had so, so many knee injuries and could easily have had a much better career if not for that. His net skills against Nadal at the AO 2008 were something else. Was a shame he played nowhere near as well in the final against Djokovic. I get the comparison to a Tsonga-esque career but just pointing out why his career went that way.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Needs to be said that Tsonga had so, so many knee injuries and could easily have had a much better career if not for that. His net skills against Nadal at the AO 2008 were something else. Was a shame he played nowhere near as well in the final against Djokovic. I get the comparison to a Tsonga-esque career but just pointing out why his career went that way.

By far my favorite tennis player who always played with the uttermost class. I NEVER understood why he wasn't voted the most respected player during his era on the tour. Just only my observations

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I remember when he first arrived on tour and I was going, whoa, this guy is gonna be hell for Federer on grass and then Roger mangled him 6-1 6-2 6-2 at Wimbledon 2019 and I was very impressed with Roger's performance. Of course we know how it ended though.

Roger in his prime on grass was too good for anyone,, yes we wont remember what happened later in 2019 at Wimby

 

[El Dude]

Roger in his prime on grass was too good for anyone,, yes we wont remember what happened later in 2019 at Wimby

One of historic match-ups I would most like to have seen would be peak Roger vs. peak Sampras at Wimbledon.

Also up there: peak Sampras vs. peak Rafa....I think the court type would have dictated (Pete on grass and fast hards, and Rafa on clay and slow hards), but still.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

One of historic match-ups I would most like to have seen would be peak Roger vs. peak Sampras at Wimbledon.

Also up there: peak Sampras vs. peak Rafa....I think the court type would have dictated (Pete on grass and fast hards, and Rafa on clay and slow hards), but still

My husband a huge Sampras fan ( still talks about him to this very day especially when Wimbledon is on) has never forgotten Federer, what he did to Pete in 2001 at Wimby

 

[El Dude]

My husband a huge Sampras fan ( still talks about him to this very day especially when Wimbledon is on) has never forgotten Federer, what he did to Pete in 2001 at Wimby

Yeah, that's a match I've revisited several times, or at least the highlights. Some amazing points and fun to watch.

It is also an interesting match to watch, because despite Roger being one of the few holdouts of strong elements of 90s-style play, he was still more of a new generation. We tend to emphasize the return/defense games of Novak and Rafa, but Roger was doing it as well, if not quite as well. But some of his returns of Pete's serve were epic.

Maybe I'm biased, but I tend to think Roger was overall better during his peak. But 2001 wasn't 94 Pete vs. 06 Roger. I suppose they were both about as far from their best...Pete was a few years past prime, but arguably still good enough to beat anyone on grass (except baby Fed). But Roger was still a good ways from his peak grass form.

That said, while I think Roger was the better player on all surfaces (aside from carpet, which he didn't play a lot on), Pete was a stronger minded competitor, which is one of the reasons I would have liked to see him face-off against Rafa.