Big Four Stuff

[Moxie]

Me too if a guy is allowed to feel crabby

Everyone is allowed to feel crabby, and I don't think it's gender-based. I'm not sure why El Dude "expects" me to be crabby, but, OK.

 

[El Dude]

Wait. Sampras isn’t in the same group as McEnroe, Lendl and Connors. What happened there?

He is in terms of total big titles, which is what I was talking about and what the chart shows.

 

[Kieran]

He is in terms of total big titles, which is what I was talking about and what the chart shows.

No. Big titles to players then was the slams. Players didn’t go about totting up MS titles. Sure, they were big, but they’re weren’t codified to the extent that they were totted up like they are today.

Sampras and Borg stand in an exclusive club as proto-Big 3 giants of the game - they stand well apart from anyone else until the 3. And I would say that stand alongside them, to a larger extent than they stand anywhere near the Connors/Lendl level of greats, because they were similarly predatory…

 

[El Dude]

No. Big titles to players then was the slams. Players didn’t go about totting up MS titles. Sure, they were big, but they’re weren’t codified to the extent that they were totted up like they are today.

Actually, yes - the chart was about big titles and that is what I was referring to - that is a fact, as are the number of big titles won by each. I'm making no comment on which titles were more important, just using the overall category of "big titles" which is generally accepted to include all tournaments above ATP 500s and mid-level equivalents. You're strawmanning a bit here, Kieran, and arguing against something that neither the chart, nor I, was saying. I mean, of course Slams are bigger...not sure why that's even a point of debate.

Sampras and Borg stand in an exclusive club as proto-Big 3 giants of the game - they stand well apart from anyone else until the 3. And I would say that stand alongside them, to a larger extent than they stand anywhere near the Connors/Lendl level of greats, because they were similarly predatory…

Well, this is a judgement call - depending upon your criteria, that is, how you assess greatness or weigh different accomplishments. I hear that you think that Sampras and Borg "stand well apart from anyone else until the 3." Again, that's a subjective call. That said, I think you're underrating McEnroe and Lendl, maybe Connors a bit - probably due to your "Slam-centric" perspective. McEnroe's 1984 was better than any season by Borg or Sampras, and Lendl had at least a couple seasons good as any by Borg or Sampras. If Borg and Sampras were greater, it isn't as vast a gulf as you imply.

And we won't even get into Laver, who had a more dominant career than anyone but the Big Three.

p.s. To be clear, I DO think Sampras and Borg were overall greater than Lendl/Mac/Connors, but that they're closer to those guys than they are the Big Three, and the gap between the five of them is not nearly as large as Slam counts alone would imply.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, yes - the chart was about big titles and that is what I was referring to - that is a fact, as are the number of big titles won by each. I'm making no comment on which titles were more important, just using the overall category of "big titles" which is generally accepted to include all tournaments above ATP 500s and mid-level equivalents. You're strawmanning a bit here, Kieran, and arguing against something that neither the chart, nor I, was saying. I mean, of course Slams are bigger...not sure why that's even a point of debate.

It’s not a straw man if it’s actually making my point. Sampras was a different level of dominance than the other players mentioned. Pete was number one for every season of his peak. Six years straight, and unlucky it wasn’t seven. Now you might point to Jimmy doing 5 in a row, but it’s plain that for at least two of those seasons he was number 2, at best.

Sampras and Borg are the two double digit slam champs since the sport went open. Now I agree that slams aren’t everything, but when they elevate a player so far above his nearest contemporary rivals, they signal something extra.

Well, this is a judgement call - depending upon your criteria, that is, how you assess greatness or weigh different accomplishments. I hear that you think that Sampras and Borg "stand well apart from anyone else until the 3." Again, that's a subjective call. That said, I think you're underrating McEnroe and Lendl, maybe Connors a bit - probably due to your "Slam-centric" perspective. McEnroe's 1984 was better than any season by Borg or Sampras, and Lendl had at least a couple seasons good as any by Borg or Sampras. If Borg and Sampras were greater, it isn't as vast a gulf as you imply.

And we won't even get into Laver, who had a more dominant career than anyone but the Big Three.

p.s. To be clear, I DO think Sampras and Borg were overall greater than Lendl/Mac/Connors, but that they're closer to those guys than they are the Big Three, and the gap between the five of them is not nearly as large as Slam counts alone would imply.

This is where we reach an interesting discussion about the relative qualities of each era. Now, Laver I’ll give you, of course. Jimmy and John played in a tough era, which actually makes Borg’s achievements even greater. But it’s difficult to weigh up that era, right? Australia wasn’t a thing, so measuring slams alone can’t help us. Yet when we look at the great achievements of that time, we see Borg’s 5 in a row at Wimbledon - still one of the most amazing feats in the sport, and greater - I would say - that Roger’s, given how Bjorn not only won 3 successive Channel Slams and grass wasn’t even his thing.

Anyway, the defence rests (we’re watching t the Lincoln Lawyer now ): these things are difficult to judge.

Except when the evidence is staring us in the face, judge. The bit part actors don’t get nominated for Best Actor in A Leading Role…which is what Sampras always was. When others faded, he was always present, fighting the wolves back from the door…

 

[El Dude]

It’s not a straw man if it’s actually making my point. Sampras was a different level of dominance than the other players mentioned. Pete was number one for every season of his peak. Six years straight, and unlucky it wasn’t seven. Now you might point to Jimmy doing 5 in a row, but it’s plain that for at least two of those seasons he was number 2, at best.

Sampras and Borg are the two double digit slam champs since the sport went open. Now I agree that slams aren’t everything, but when they elevate a player so far above his nearest contemporary rivals, they signal something extra.

All of which is valid, but consider the context: we were talking about total big titles and Alex Zverev. I posted the chart to show where Zverev is relative to others - and it was just total big titles, not discussing relative strengths of big titles (though I color-coded it). You took issue with my grouping Sampras with Lendl, Connors and McEnroe - when all I was referring to was big title count, not relative greatness. Thus, straw man.

But I hear your point and am always happy to discuss historic greats!

This is where we reach an interesting discussion about the relative qualities of each era. Now, Laver I’ll give you, of course. Jimmy and John played in a tough era, which actually makes Borg’s achievements even greater. But it’s difficult to weigh up that era, right? Australia wasn’t a thing, so measuring slams alone can’t help us. Yet when we look at the great achievements of that time, we see Borg’s 5 in a row at Wimbledon - still one of the most amazing feats in the sport, and greater - I would say - that Roger’s, given how Bjorn not only won 3 successive Channel Slams and grass wasn’t even his thing.

Yep.The AO through 1982 as lesser than the other Slams. Really, 83-86 were also not quite up to the others, but they were more competitive. The AO through 1982 was really more equivalent to one of today's ATP 500s, in terms of depth and talent. In a similar sense, I don't really consider Edberg's Olympics Gold a "big title," because it was super weak - more like an ATP 250 or even longer Challenger. 1988 was stronger but still nothing like recent Olympics, which in terms of depth and difficulty are basically the same as Masters, though more highly coveted by players.

Another factor is the relative merits of winning two Slams in the 70s vs. two later on...Borg's two Slams--and even Mac's and Lendl's during the 80s--usually occurred while playing only three Slams. Meaning, winning two in 1980 is essentially winning 67% of all "true" Slams, while Sampras and later is 50%. Meaning, the Borg/Mac/Lendl two Slam seasons are mathematically closer to the three-Slam seasons of recent decades.

And one further point: Masters didn't really codify until 1990. Ultimate Tennis Statistics thankfully demarcated the nine biggest non-Slam/Finals tournaments to give us equivalencies, but it also means that they weren't emphasized or required. the top players back then simply played fewer big titles than players today, so had less chances to rack them up. Top players tended to play more lesser tournaments - which is why Connors has so many damn titles...more than half of them are very minor tournaments.

Anyway, the defence rests (we’re watching t the Lincoln Lawyer now ): these things are difficult to judge.

Except when the evidence is staring us in the face, judge. The bit part actors don’t get nominated for Best Actor in A Leading Role…which is what Sampras always was. When others faded, he was always present, fighting the wolves back from the door…

Sampras was great, obviously, but this is where context matters. Compare his competition to Lendl who, I think, had the toughest career opponents of any great - in terms of other greats at or near their peaks. He came up when Connors, Borg, and McEnroe ruled; Borg was replaced by Wilander, and then Edberg and Becker joined. His last few years saw the rise of Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. Meaning, he played alongside the primes of three generations of greats, and there was never really a period of tie when at least a couple other greats were in prime form.

I just think the "14 to 8" Slam titles for Sampras and Lendl only tells a part of the picture. The other part is "18 to 19," which is Slam finals - which alone doesn't bridge the gap, but illustrates just how good Lendl was.

Jeff Sackmann actually ranks Lendl (as well as Borg and McEnroe) ahead of Sampras, but his rankings are solely based on Elo. But even if we don't buy Elo as a definitive ranking system (I don't), it does imply that Sampras was overall less dominant than those other three were. A lot of that has to do with his relative weakness on clay.

 

[Fiero425]

All of which is valid, but consider the context: we were talking about total big titles and Alex Zverev. I posted the chart to show where Zverev is relative to others - and it was just total big titles, not discussing relative strengths of big titles (though I color-coded it). You took issue with my grouping Sampras with Lendl, Connors and McEnroe - when all I was referring to was big title count, not relative greatness. Thus, straw man.

But I hear your point and am always happy to discuss historic greats!


Yep.The AO through 1982 as lesser than the other Slams. Really, 83-86 were also not quite up to the others, but they were more competitive. The AO through 1982 was really more equivalent to one of today's ATP 500s, in terms of depth and talent. In a similar sense, I don't really consider Edberg's Olympics Gold a "big title," because it was super weak - more like an ATP 250 or even longer Challenger. 1988 was stronger but still nothing like recent Olympics, which in terms of depth and difficulty are basically the same as Masters, though more highly coveted by players.

Another factor is the relative merits of winning two Slams in the 70s vs. two later on...Borg's two Slams--and even Mac's and Lendl's during the 80s--usually occurred while playing only three Slams. Meaning, winning two in 1980 is essentially winning 67% of all "true" Slams, while Sampras and later is 50%. Meaning, the Borg/Mac/Lendl two Slam seasons are mathematically closer to the three-Slam seasons of recent decades.

And one further point: Masters didn't really codify until 1990. Ultimate Tennis Statistics thankfully demarcated the nine biggest non-Slam/Finals tournaments to give us equivalencies, but it also means that they weren't emphasized or required. the top players back then simply played fewer big titles than players today, so had less chances to rack them up. Top players tended to play more lesser tournaments - which is why Connors has so many damn titles...more than half of them are very minor tournaments.


Sampras was great, obviously, but this is where context matters. Compare his competition to Lendl who, I think, had the toughest career opponents of any great - in terms of other greats at or near their peaks. He came up when Connors, Borg, and McEnroe ruled; Borg was replaced by Wilander, and then Edberg and Becker joined. His last few years saw the rise of Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. Meaning, he played alongside the primes of three generations of greats, and there was never really a period of tie when at least a couple other greats were in prime form.

I just think the "14 to 8" Slam titles for Sampras and Lendl only tells a part of the picture. The other part is "18 to 19," which is Slam finals - which alone doesn't bridge the gap, but illustrates just how good Lendl was.

Jeff Sackmann actually ranks Lendl (as well as Borg and McEnroe) ahead of Sampras, but his rankings are solely based on Elo. But even if we don't buy Elo as a definitive ranking system (I don't), it does imply that Sampras was overall less dominant than those other three were. A lot of that has to do with his relative weakness on clay.

Yep, Borg & Sampras are in a separate catagory from all others! Borg was immortalized for his great play at such an early age, becoming an ICON before turning 20 by winning the FO & Wimbledon so many times & making both more relevant; remember Breakfast @ Wimbledon in '79! Sampras was also super dominant as well owning his top rivals! We were so impressed, we overlooked him never even playing a FO final! Back then it was a rarity to get to double digits in majors, but since then the Big 3 have blown all the records out of the water unfortunately! Borg & Sampras should never be forgotten even though their #'s have been dwarfed in so many ways! Lendl is another player totally overlooked as he was a consummate professional & worked hard to overcome the conditions of the day to outdo other greats of his era! The list is long w/ just a few being McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, & Edberg! Even the Big 3 playing longer didn't have to deal w/ such competition!

 

[Kieran]

All of which is valid, but consider the context: we were talking about total big titles and Alex Zverev. I posted the chart to show where Zverev is relative to others - and it was just total big titles, not discussing relative strengths of big titles (though I color-coded it). You took issue with my grouping Sampras with Lendl, Connors and McEnroe - when all I was referring to was big title count, not relative greatness. Thus, straw man.

But I hear your point and am always happy to discuss historic greats!


Yep.The AO through 1982 as lesser than the other Slams. Really, 83-86 were also not quite up to the others, but they were more competitive. The AO through 1982 was really more equivalent to one of today's ATP 500s, in terms of depth and talent. In a similar sense, I don't really consider Edberg's Olympics Gold a "big title," because it was super weak - more like an ATP 250 or even longer Challenger. 1988 was stronger but still nothing like recent Olympics, which in terms of depth and difficulty are basically the same as Masters, though more highly coveted by players.

Another factor is the relative merits of winning two Slams in the 70s vs. two later on...Borg's two Slams--and even Mac's and Lendl's during the 80s--usually occurred while playing only three Slams. Meaning, winning two in 1980 is essentially winning 67% of all "true" Slams, while Sampras and later is 50%. Meaning, the Borg/Mac/Lendl two Slam seasons are mathematically closer to the three-Slam seasons of recent decades.

And one further point: Masters didn't really codify until 1990. Ultimate Tennis Statistics thankfully demarcated the nine biggest non-Slam/Finals tournaments to give us equivalencies, but it also means that they weren't emphasized or required. the top players back then simply played fewer big titles than players today, so had less chances to rack them up. Top players tended to play more lesser tournaments - which is why Connors has so many damn titles...more than half of them are very minor tournaments.


Sampras was great, obviously, but this is where context matters. Compare his competition to Lendl who, I think, had the toughest career opponents of any great - in terms of other greats at or near their peaks. He came up when Connors, Borg, and McEnroe ruled; Borg was replaced by Wilander, and then Edberg and Becker joined. His last few years saw the rise of Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. Meaning, he played alongside the primes of three generations of greats, and there was never really a period of tie when at least a couple other greats were in prime form.

I just think the "14 to 8" Slam titles for Sampras and Lendl only tells a part of the picture. The other part is "18 to 19," which is Slam finals - which alone doesn't bridge the gap, but illustrates just how good Lendl was.

Jeff Sackmann actually ranks Lendl (as well as Borg and McEnroe) ahead of Sampras, but his rankings are solely based on Elo. But even if we don't buy Elo as a definitive ranking system (I don't), it does imply that Sampras was overall less dominant than those other three were. A lot of that has to do with his relative weakness on clay.

Interesting stuff, brother. And it would be interesting if we could have a related measure of the field at different stages. For instance, technically the field of the last 20 years is the best of all time - and yet I think they were the weakest field I’ve seen. You say that Pete faced a weaker field than Lendl, but is it possible that Pete (and I’ll extend the same courtesy to the Big 3) were just so much better? I don’t know how we could measure this. My feeling is that if Pete peaked in the 80’s or 00’s, he’d be similarly impressive to what he was in the 90’s. Players of his stature are made from rarest rock. The old description, that great players find a way applies to him.

But then you might argue, well he didn’t find a way in Paris, to which the reply could be to say that the surfaces were different then compared to now - which would prompt the reply that Agassi found away, despite lacking the superior substance of Sampras, and the discussion then gets wild: Agassi snuck under the radar on each of his first slam victories at each venue: Wimbledon 92, USO 94, Paris 99, though not so for his Australian Open 95. This is easier on a player than to be the one wearing a target on his chest.

Then the Agassi fans fight back with the strange but mysteriously true suggestion that it’s Agassi who wins over Pete because Agassi was the first to play in the modern style of great player, and Pete was the last of the old style great player. Pete’s game rapidly became obsolete, whereas Andre was the prototype of great player for the new millennium.

I would still rate Pete ahead of those other players because he’s made of that quality that separates the great from the good.

As for Zverev, I’d put any “big titles” he’s won in context: they only emphasise his dilemma in the truly big occasions..

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Does Cilic, del Potro, or Ferrer make the Tennis Hall of Fame? Or will it just be the obvious 5 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka) that make it from the Big 3/4 era?

 

[El Dude]

Does Cilic, del Potro, or Ferrer make the Tennis Hall of Fame? Or will it just be the obvious 5 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Wawrinka) that make it from the Big 3/4 era?

To be honest, I don't think much about the Tennis Hall of Fame. I know some about the baseball HoF, which is a pretty big deal - but is a bit of a shitshow, in terms of consistency. That is, there are a lot of players in the baseball Hall who are worse than players without.

But to approach your question, I think you can start with the question: Who are the worst players in the Tennis Hall of Fame and how do those guys you mention stack up against them?

Here's a list of every (male) tennis Hall of Famer with 3 or fewer Slams, who played at least half of their prime years in the Open Era (so not including guys like Fred Stolle, who is borderline but had his best years before):


Michael Chang
Lleyton Hewitt
Gorin Ivanisevic
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Jan Kodes
Ilie Nastase
Yannick Noah
Patrick Rafter
Dennis Ralston
Tony Roche
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin
Stan Smith
Michael Stich

Slam winners not in the Hall:
2 Slams: Kriek, Bruguera
1 Slam: Orantes, Panatta, Edmondson, Teacher, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Cash, Muster, Gomez, Moya, Johansson, Costa, Korda, Krajicek, Gaudio, Ferrero.

The big outlier above is Dennis Ralston - the only Slamless player on the list. Ralston was a good player, but there are many better Slamless players - such as Tom Okker - who didn't make it. I assume his central role on the US Davis Cup team was key in his induction, but it seems to be an example of arbitrariness and who among voters you should hands with. EDIT: Oh, he won a bunch of doubles Slams, so I guess is in the "Frew McMillan" category.

Kriek won two of the weakest AOs, so I get that, but Bruguera? The Hall also seems to dislike specialists - a lot of those guys were strong clay players who were relatively weak elsewhere. Lots of Spanish players.

It is also weird that someone like Noah is on there but not Orantes, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Muster, etc.

Anyhow, Cilic and Del Potro don't stand out as among the most accomplished single Slam winners. Both won only a single Masters, though both won over 20 titles. But of Cilic's 21, 17 of the are ATP 250s. Del Potro is a bit more balanced, with only half of his 22 titles being 250s (he won a bunch of 500s). And of course there's some big differences: Cilic, in terms of his level as a tennis player, was really no better than guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Nishikori, etc. He just went Stanimal for one Slam. Del Potro, on the other hand, was a greater talent whose career was derailed by injury. It is hard not to wistfully imagine what his career would have looked like if he was healthier - I don't think it is impossible that he would have been comparable to Andy Murray, or at least been a close #5 in the Big Four era.

But it is hard imagining inducting either when you have players like Orantes, Gerulaitis, Bruguera and Muster not in.