Fedalovic Wars

[PhiEaglesfan712]

 

[Moxie]

@Fiero425 posted this on the Djokovic fans, and pre-empting it getting moved here, and so as not to pollute a fan thread, I would like to reply to his comment. He said this:

"Even if I come off as a Negative Nelly, what choice did Roger have but to be magnanimous and give Novak his props? Technically Fed's in 3rd place behind Djokovic & Nadal, but I'll put him in 2nd due to his longevity, consistency, & ability to win on all surfaces w/ great success! I recall Roger, Andy Roddick, & Nick Kyrgios giving such grief to Nole, his lack of character, injury complaints, etc.! Now they're his biggest cheerleaders touting him as THE GOAT! Even if this is the end, no other conclusion is possible! I can't see Carlos, Jannik, Ben, Daniil, Sascha, or any other newbie being able to sustain the greatness of The Big 3! Historic tennis records may be set for quite a while!"

Aside from feeling that Roger had no choice but to say what he did, which is untrue...he could have remained silent. I think it's interesting to hear him ruminate over the past. Anyway, as to the comment above: Fiero puts Roger 2nd, due to "longevity, consistency, & ability to win on all surfaces with great success." This also speaks to Rafa's accomplishments, in much the same way. Oh, except that Rafa has won two more Majors.

Longevity, even beyond what he expected. Roger's career spanned 14 years. Rafa's to date is 13. And he gives indications that he'll play next year.

Consistency: who spent the most years in the top 10? (See below.) Who won a Major in every year for 10 years? Roger's best streak is 8, and Novak's is 7.

Ability to win on all surfaces? Nadal has 2+ wins at all Majors, which Roger does not have. And if you discount every Major Nadal has won on clay, he still ties Connors, Lendl, Aggasi, Connors, Rosewall and Fred Perry for the number of Majors they won, overall.

Just to keep you honest.

 

[Fiero425]

@Fiero425 posted this on the Djokovic fans, and pre-empting it getting moved here, and so as not to pollute a fan thread, I would like to reply to his comment. He said this:

"Even if I come off as a Negative Nelly, what choice did Roger have but to be magnanimous and give Novak his props? Technically Fed's in 3rd place behind Djokovic & Nadal, but I'll put him in 2nd due to his longevity, consistency, & ability to win on all surfaces w/ great success! I recall Roger, Andy Roddick, & Nick Kyrgios giving such grief to Nole, his lack of character, injury complaints, etc.! Now they're his biggest cheerleaders touting him as THE GOAT! Even if this is the end, no other conclusion is possible! I can't see Carlos, Jannik, Ben, Daniil, Sascha, or any other newbie being able to sustain the greatness of The Big 3! Historic tennis records may be set for quite a while!"

Aside from feeling that Roger had no choice but to say what he did, which is untrue...he could have remained silent. I think it's interesting to hear him ruminate over the past. Anyway, as to the comment above: Fiero puts Roger 2nd, due to "longevity, consistency, & ability to win on all surfaces with great success." This also speaks to Rafa's accomplishments, in much the same way. Oh, except that Rafa has won two more Majors.

Longevity, even beyond what he expected. Roger's career spanned 14 years. Rafa's to date is 13. And he gives indications that he'll play next year.

Consistency: who spent the most years in the top 10? (See below.) Who won a Major in every year for 10 years? Roger's best streak is 8, and Novak's is 7.

Ability to win on all surfaces? Nadal has 2+ wins at all Majors, which Roger does not have. And if you discount every Major Nadal has won on clay, he still ties Connors, Lendl, Aggasi, Connors, Rosewall and Fred Perry for the number of Majors they won, overall.

Just to keep you honest.

View attachment 9535

What next, "when the moon's in the 7th house...?" You guys find new ways to elevate Nadal even though he has only 1/2 the wks @#1! Come on! ;-)

 

[Moxie]

What next, "when the moon's in the 7th house...?" You guys find new ways to elevate Nadal even though he has only 1/2 the wks @#1! Come on! ;-)

And you find new ways to denigrate him, even when he's right up there. Note...you didn't mention weeks at #1. You are searching for a reason to make Nadal third, in spite of the Majors. That's your prejudice. I'm just calling you out.

 

[Moxie]

View attachment 9248

Roger will always be popular. He played a style that many could relate to, and his fans believed his was the GOAT, or would be, for many years. Until he got passed in the GOAT race. Each of the big 3 have a certain claim to it. Which is why it will be a never-ending conversation.

 

[Federberg]

They're all GOAT's. I'm sorry, even though I'm a huge Federer fan, there comes a point where arguing against any one of those 3 just comes across as moronic. I don't think that Rafa or Novak would be what they are without Roger. I don't think that Roger would have stuck around for as long without the other 2, let me be very clear about that statement.. NOT because he was desperate to keep ahead of them, but because of the challenge they represented and the moment they created. Why would you not want to continue being a part of that? They are all WINNING at life, and fans who jealously try to argue the case for one or the other are seriously misunderstanding what it must be like for them. Yes it's possible that Novak might have some angst about the popularity of the other 2, but it seems to me that lately all of that good feeling is now accruing to him. If he had any bitterness about it in the past I suspect it's largely gone now. You simply cannot remain bitter about such things at that level unless you've got some sociopath in you. Folks enjoy it! Embrace the greatness. For me, Roger has shown a grace and talent I haven't seen in any other sportsman apart from perhaps Michael Jordan. Novak has shown a ruthlessness and competitiveness I haven't seen in anyone other than perhaps Tiger Woods. And Rafa? A freaking right hander playing as a leftie and becoming a GOAT?? Does anything else need to be said about that? No! But I'll say something else. He is the most utterly unique sportsman I've ever seen. There was a time I was bored watching him play I just hated it. It didn't fit my tastes. Now I closet watch some of his greatest matches. Roger might be my favourite, but I'm a fan of ALL 3 gentlemen now. You know why?? Because you can't honestly claim to love this sport without falling a little bit in love with all of them. If you hate any of them? You're worse than a fan boy. Something is WRONG with you

Rant/sermon over..

 

[El Dude]

Nice rant, @Federberg , and I agree with every word of it - and have said something similar for awhile now, if a bit less aggressively. LOL. I don't understand how any tennis fan can't appreciate and even be a "little bit in love" with all three of them - or, at the very least, grudging (and immense) respect.

But, a caveat. All three are in the exclusive "GOAT tier" - something well beyond garden variety ATGs (Edberg, Becker, Agassi, etc) and solidly ahead of the inner circle greats (Borg, Mac, Lendl, Sampras, Connors, etc). Looking at all of tennis history, the only players who were comparably dominant during their time were Rod Laver and maybe Bill Tilden (Rosewall and Gonzales are close, but I'd put them in the next tier down).

The caveat is that Novak gets the statistical edge in just about every category. On a purely statistical level, he is the singular GOAT. There's really no logical, reasonable argument against his status as being if only a bit higher than Roger and Rafa. It might be relatively small but it isn't negligible - and it is across the board in nearly every single category. In other words, in total, the statistical argument is overwhelmingly for Novak as being above the other two.

We can quibble about who is 2nd or 3rd among Roger and Rafa (or where Laver belongs, and how to make the "era adjustment")...ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste and what you value. But I don't see a logical, reasoned argument not to give Novak the nod as the statistical GOAT. In other words, if we line up the stats and achievements of all three, we can quibble about Rafa vs. Roger -- both have the edge over the other in different ways. But Novak surpasses both in nearly every way.

This is why when push comes to shove, I put Novak as--at the very least--"first among near equals," with Roger and Rafa being 2a and 2b. The only player that I think has an argument to be as good or better than Novak is Rod Laver, but it is hard to compare due to the differences in the times they played. If ATP rankings were held during Laver's prime, he'd easily have 400+ weeks at #1. He was the best player in the world in 1962, and for most of 1964-71 or so. Of course the same is even more true of Tilden, who--according to the only website which had good pre-Open Era records that is now unfortunately defunct--had him as #1 for something like 600+ weeks. But tennis was so different back then, that it is impossible to compare. Laver is a bit easier to compare, because he remained great into the early years of the Open Era, and bridged before and after. Or to put it another way, if you extrapolate ATP rankings, Laver would be #1 in 1968-71, when he was in his early 30s. So it isn't a stretch to give him credit for his dominance in the 60s, even though he didn't play amateur Slams after 1962.

So while I agree that the three are in an exclusive club--at least of Open Era players--if we look to statistics at all, Novak becomes the first among equals. Roger was the tip of the spear for GOATness - he brought the conversation of what greatness means to a new level; Rafa was a counter-point that provided different flavors of GOATness - no less than Roger, but different. But Novak eventually surpassed both, at least as far as statistics are concerned.

 

[Federberg]

Nice rant, @Federberg , and I agree with every word of it - and have said something similar for awhile now, if a bit less aggressively. LOL. I don't understand how any tennis fan can't appreciate and even be a "little bit in love" with all three of them - or, at the very least, grudging (and immense) respect.

But, a caveat. All three are in the exclusive "GOAT tier" - something well beyond garden variety ATGs (Edberg, Becker, Agassi, etc) and solidly ahead of the inner circle greats (Borg, Mac, Lendl, Sampras, Connors, etc). Looking at all of tennis history, the only players who were comparably dominant during their time were Rod Laver and maybe Bill Tilden (Rosewall and Gonzales are close, but I'd put them in the next tier down).

The caveat is that Novak gets the statistical edge in just about every category. On a purely statistical level, he is the singular GOAT. There's really no logical, reasonable argument against his status as being if only a bit higher than Roger and Rafa. It might be relatively small but it isn't negligible - and it is across the board in nearly every single category. In other words, in total, the statistical argument is overwhelmingly for Novak as being above the other two.

We can quibble about who is 2nd or 3rd among Roger and Rafa (or where Laver belongs, and how to make the "era adjustment")...ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste and what you value. But I don't see a logical, reasoned argument not to give Novak the nod as the statistical GOAT. In other words, if we line up the stats and achievements of all three, we can quibble about Rafa vs. Roger -- both have the edge over the other in different ways. But Novak surpasses both in nearly every way.

This is why when push comes to shove, I put Novak as--at the very least--"first among near equals," with Roger and Rafa being 2a and 2b. The only player that I think has an argument to be as good or better than Novak is Rod Laver, but it is hard to compare due to the differences in the times they played. If ATP rankings were held during Laver's prime, he'd easily have 400+ weeks at #1. He was the best player in the world in 1962, and for most of 1964-71 or so. Of course the same is even more true of Tilden, who--according to the only website which had good pre-Open Era records that is now unfortunately defunct--had him as #1 for something like 600+ weeks. But tennis was so different back then, that it is impossible to compare. Laver is a bit easier to compare, because he remained great into the early years of the Open Era, and bridged before and after. Or to put it another way, if you extrapolate ATP rankings, Laver would be #1 in 1968-71, when he was in his early 30s. So it isn't a stretch to give him credit for his dominance in the 60s, even though he didn't play amateur Slams after 1962.

So while I agree that the three are in an exclusive club--at least of Open Era players--if we look to statistics at all, Novak becomes the first among equals. Roger was the tip of the spear for GOATness - he brought the conversation of what greatness means to a new level; Rafa was a counter-point that provided different flavors of GOATness - no less than Roger, but different. But Novak eventually surpassed both, at least as far as statistics are concerned.

I have no issue with folks who want to assign singular GOAT to Novak. I don't particularly agree with it. I think they, all 3, are interwoven. They - together - tell a story of tennis that's so incredibly awesome even attempting to separate them is a non-tennis action in my view. While I get the need for some to do it, to my mind each of them has done things that possibly no one else will ever do. Rafa's 14 slams in one major will almost certainly be never done again. Roger 5-peating in two slams (10 consecutive) will probably never be done again. The style will never be seen again. Novak's numbers. All great. I just don't feel the need to go further than that. It's boring to me Just me...

 

[Fiero425]

I have no issue with folks who want to assign singular GOAT to Novak. I don't particularly agree with it. I think they, all 3, are interwoven. They - together - tell a story of tennis that's so incredibly awesome even attempting to separate them is a non-tennis action in my view. While I get the need for some to do it, to my mind each of them has done things that possibly no one else will ever do. Rafa's 14 slams in one major will almost certainly be never done again. Roger 5-peating in two slams (10 consecutive) will probably never be done again. The style will never be seen again. Novak's numbers. All great. I just don't feel the need to go further than that. It's boring to me Just me...

I advocate for Novak because few others did until recently! For years it was all about Fedal while Djokovic was the "interloper" crashing the party! Around the world it's still all about Fedal w/ just Djoker an afterthought! The dumbest tennis fans only recognized Roger at the top while the "tennis intelligentsia" around the world promoted the sport thru Fedal alone as if Nole didn't exist!

 

[El Dude]

I have no issue with folks who want to assign singular GOAT to Novak. I don't particularly agree with it. I think they, all 3, are interwoven. They - together - tell a story of tennis that's so incredibly awesome even attempting to separate them is a non-tennis action in my view. While I get the need for some to do it, to my mind each of them has done things that possibly no one else will ever do. Rafa's 14 slams in one major will almost certainly be never done again. Roger 5-peating in two slams (10 consecutive) will probably never be done again. The style will never be seen again. Novak's numbers. All great. I just don't feel the need to go further than that. It's boring to me Just me...

Again, I agree. Where we might differe is that I don't see it as either/or, but both/and.

As I've said before, I see it sort of like having two sets of glasses - one color, the other grayscale. The colored glasses say "all three are GOATs, with different flavors of Goatness." The grayscale glasses say, "Novak is the Goatiest of them all."

Most here seem to prefer color only. Statnerds like grayscale. I say both are useful, but one doesn't negate the other.

 

[Fiero425]

Again, I agree. Where we might differe is that I don't see it as either/or, but both/and.

As I've said before, I see it sort of like having two sets of glasses - one color, the other grayscale. The colored glasses say "all three are GOATs, with different flavors of Goatness." The grayscale glasses say, "Novak is the Goatiest of them all."

Most here seem to prefer color only. Statnerds like grayscale. I say both are useful, but one doesn't negate the other.

True enough the Big 3 are now and forever inextricably linked! Roger owned the tour at first w/ those 5 cons. wins at Wimbledon & The USO along w/ taking 3 majors in a season 3 times! It was purely natural to believe him the Goatiest at the time even w/ 15 Majors, just 1 more than Sampras! Unfortunately for him Nadal came along; not as successful overall, but a true rival who defeated Roger on all surfaces from the beginning of their rivalry! It looked as if they would face each other in final after final until they retired! Along came Djokovic who tested them a little at first, but wasn't changing the status of the top 2! He was a perennial #3 for a few years until 2011 when a switch was flipped! He not only started beating both Fedal, he was embarrassing them while still at the height of their powers! Novak totally took over & not only overcame their records, he did it faster while adding to them! OTTH, he alone has a Double Golden Masters, took 3 majors 4 times, has 3 CGS, 7 YEC's, 8 YE #1's, & a winning % of over 80 in all 4 majors/surfaces! They're still linked, but Novak is definitely the Goatiest!

 

[El Dude]

True enough the Big 3 are now and forever inextricably linked! Roger owned the tour at first w/ those 5 cons. wins at Wimbledon & The USO along w/ taking 3 majors in a season 3 times! It was purely natural to believe him the Goatiest at the time even w/ 15 Majors, just 1 more than Sampras! Unfortunately for him Nadal came along; not as successful overall, but a true rival who defeated Roger on all surfaces from the beginning of their rivalry! It looked as if they would face each other in final after final until they retired! Along came Djokovic who tested them a little at first, but wasn't changing the status of the top 2! He was a perennial #3 for a few years until 2011 when a switch was flipped! He not only started beating both Fedal, he was embarrassing them while still at the height of their powers! Novak totally took over & not only overcame their records, he did it faster while adding to them! OTTH, he alone has a Double Golden Masters, took 3 majors 4 times, has 3 CGS, 7 YEC's, 8 YE #1's, & a winning % of over 80 in all 4 majors/surfaces! They're still linked, but Novak is definitely the Goatiest!

Three Old Goats...

And Alcaraz looking on....

 

[Fiero425]

Three Old Goats...

View attachment 9538

And Alcaraz looking on....

We can only hope there's a legitimate transfer of tennis powers, but even though Carlo has all the talent, I'm not sure of his health & body! Being so durable & consistent is what the Big 3 were all about even though Nadal took his breaks! He still hung on for 20+ years at the top! We won't ever see their like again; I'm sure of it!

 

[Moxie]

I have no issue with folks who want to assign singular GOAT to Novak. I don't particularly agree with it. I think they, all 3, are interwoven. They - together - tell a story of tennis that's so incredibly awesome even attempting to separate them is a non-tennis action in my view. While I get the need for some to do it, to my mind each of them has done things that possibly no one else will ever do. Rafa's 14 slams in one major will almost certainly be never done again. Roger 5-peating in two slams (10 consecutive) will probably never be done again. The style will never be seen again. Novak's numbers. All great. I just don't feel the need to go further than that. It's boring to me Just me...

I agree that they're interwoven, and impossible to extricate from one another. It's an Era that they dominated together, and in various ways. But they definitely challenged each other. Long ago, you used to give me a hard time for trying to shoe-horn Nadal into the conversations about Roger, and I told you that Nadal would be in Roger's obit. And he will be, and vice versa. Since then, Novak, too. This era in men's tennis has been awesome to behold, and a lot of fun. They did it together. If it makes some happy to say that Novak came out on top, that's fine. But, as El Dude calls it, I think, it's still best of basically equals. They are, together, head-and-shoulders above everyone in the Open Era, at the very least. They've given us some amazing tennis, and it was a collaborative affair, in that. That can't be denied. A great player without a great rival, or, in this case, two, is far less interesting.

 

[El Dude]

We can only hope there's a legitimate transfer of tennis powers, but even though Carlo has all the talent, I'm not sure of his health & body! Being so durable & consistent is what the Big 3 were all about even though Nadal took his breaks! He still hung on for 20+ years at the top! We won't ever see their like again; I'm sure of it!

I don't know a lot about hockey, but I believe Gretzky was the origin of the term "GOAT." His run in the 80s was at a higher level than had ever been seen before. But then a few years later, a kid by the name of Mario Lemieux showed up and was similarly great, though his career was greatly hindered by injuries and, I believe, a disease of some kind.

In basketball, you have Michael Jordan. Lots of greats before him, but he played the sport with a new pizazz and overall level of dominance unlike anyone before. I'm not sure I'd consider Lebron James quite as good, but he was close - and he started the year after Jordan retired (for the final time).

In football, Tom Brady is generally considered the quarterback GOAT - maybe not as talented as Peyton Manning, but he has the seven trophies and an uncanny ability to win when it mattered. But now we have Patrick Mahomes, whose incredible physical gifts are matched by a champion's mentality. When all is said and done, Mahomes might just surpass Brady.

My point is that you just never know who is going to emerge and how good they'll become. We do know that great players are inevitable, and not only is the game never without a cohort of greats, but you always have overlap of generations (more on that in a later post...I have an idea for a chart!). Chances are we won't see a player as good as the Big Three for some time, but I wouldn't count it out. I mean, we may be underselling the incredible start that Alcaraz has had to his career, unmatched by any but just a few players in Open Era history: Borg, Wilander, Nadal. What remains to be seen is whether he's more Borg/Nadal-like, or more Wilander-like. Or if, as you say, he can stay healthy.

And a bit of clarification: I group Borg and Nadal in terms of talent and peak dominance, even though Nadal has had the far greater career. I think you could even make the case that Borg's peak of 1978-80 was better than Nadal ever was, though I would counter and say that Nadal had several seasons just as good, but they were more spread out (I was going down a rabbit hole and concluded that Borg's 78-80 was the second best three-year span in Open Era history, behind only Roger's 04-06 or 05-07).

So while I think we're safely out of the "Hewitt-zone" for Alcaraz - I just think he's better than Lleyton ever was, and that third Slam sort of puts him in a different atmosphere - there's still a lot of time before we know if he's more Borg-like, Nadal-like, or Wilander-like. Most likely somewhere between the latter two, I would guess.

Anyhow, when I look at tennis greats of the Open Era, I think in terms of the following tiers:

GOAT TIER: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver (full career)
INNER CIRCLE GREATS: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Rosewall (full career), Gonzales (full career)
LESSER GREATS: Newcombe (full career), Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Murray
NEAR GREATS: Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt, maybe one or two more

Tilden would be inner circle or GOAT, and guys like Kramer, Vines, Budge, Perry, RIggs, Emerson, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman, Drobny, etc as lesser to inner circle.

Anyhow, I think Alcaraz is almost certainly going to end up at least in the Lesser Greats, but I think he has a real chance of being in the inner circle. While Sinner could be just as good, until he wins that important second Slam, his floor is that of a near great. And who knows who might join them...Medvedev really only needs another Slam to join the near greats, and it is far too soon to tell with guys like Mensik and the guy who is sneaking up as a personal favorite, Joao Fonseca.

 

[El Dude]

So here's that chart - using my Premier Event Points system. I included every player who was at least a "near great" as recently as just before the Open Era - so even though Emerson and Gonzales were well past their primes, they were still around (I didn't include Lew Hoad, because he had 0 PEP during the Open Era, despite playing limited tournaments for several years...lots of former greats played a bit during the early years).

With near greats it gets a bit tricky - some names I could have included were Andres Gimeno, Tony Roche, Jan Kodes, Vitas Gerulaitis, Michael Stich, Michael Chang, Goran Ivanisevic, Thomas Muster, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Stan Wawrinka, etc....but I had to make the cut somewhere. The point here isn't to be comprehensive, but to show how cohorts of greats overlap. Maybe I'll include a more comprehensive chart later on of, say, every player to win either a Slam, multiple big titles, #1, etc.

Some takeaways from this chart:

• In just about every era, there were ATGs at or near their prime. The lone exception is possible the early 2000s, though Agassi was still very good and Sampras--while a shadow of his former self--still won a Slam in 2000 and 2002. But that's where you see Hewitt getting his two years at #1. The main thing is that there is a generational gap - there were just no truly great players between Sampras and Federer. Lots of very good players, but the best players born between those two are guys like Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Rios, etc.
• There are obvious "cluster eras" when you had a high density of "ATGness." The main two are the late 70s to mid-80s when you had Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl--the original Big Four--pass the baton around. Then a period right after that when Lendl was still great, but you had a bunch of lesser greats in Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and then the early years of Sampras and Agassi, and Courier's brief prime. The third cluster is the Big Four era, especially 2005-19, after which it was really only Novak and Rafa.
• 2024 is just halfway over, but it could be that it is a bit "lighter" than previous years, with no big seasons by any one player. But Sinner and Alcaraz could still win a second Slam, which would change that. But you can definitely see them emerging as the new "Big Two;" if they'll be joined by anyone else remains to be seen.

As a side note, here's a fun fact. In my PEP system, 10 points is elite - sort of like one of the best years of Tsonga/Berdych types, though an off year for a great player. 20 is a lesser great year, 30 is the great season, and 40 is historic -- only 14 players have reached that level (and only 8 have reached 50). Anyhow, the fun fact is that according to PEP, there have been sixteen seasons of 30+ PEP without a Slam title. Of those 16, only one player hasn't won a Slam...guess who? Here's the list:

1. 43 Rod Laver, 1970
2. 43 Ivan Lendl, 1982
3. 37 Ivan Lendl, 1983
4. 36 Rod Laver, 1971
5. 35 Roger Federer, 2014
6. 34 Tony Roche, 1969
7. 33 Jimmy Connors, 1977
8. 33 Jimmy Connors, 1979
9. 32 Andy Murray, 2015
10. 31 Jimmy Connors, 1980
11. 31 John McEnroe, 1985
12. 31 Roger Federer, 2015
13. 30 John McEnroe, 1982
14. 30 Jimmy Connors, 1984
15. 30 Mats Wilander, 1987
16. 30 Alexander Zverev, 2021

Poor old Sascha! I think he's solidifying his status as best player not to win a Slam, edging out Tom Okker and David Ferrer.

 

[Fiero425]

I don't know a lot about hockey, but I believe Gretzky was the origin of the term "GOAT." His run in the 80s was at a higher level than had ever been seen before. But then a few years later, a kid by the name of Mario Lemieux showed up and was similarly great, though his career was greatly hindered by injuries and, I believe, a disease of some kind.

In basketball, you have Michael Jordan. Lots of greats before him, but he played the sport with a new pizazz and overall level of dominance unlike anyone before. I'm not sure I'd consider Lebron James quite as good, but he was close - and he started the year after Jordan retired (for the final time).

In football, Tom Brady is generally considered the quarterback GOAT - maybe not as talented as Peyton Manning, but he has the seven trophies and an uncanny ability to win when it mattered. But now we have Patrick Mahomes, whose incredible physical gifts are matched by a champion's mentality. When all is said and done, Mahomes might just surpass Brady.

My point is that you just never know who is going to emerge and how good they'll become. We do know that great players are inevitable, and not only is the game never without a cohort of greats, but you always have overlap of generations (more on that in a later post...I have an idea for a chart!). Chances are we won't see a player as good as the Big Three for some time, but I wouldn't count it out. I mean, we may be underselling the incredible start that Alcaraz has had to his career, unmatched by any but just a few players in Open Era history: Borg, Wilander, Nadal. What remains to be seen is whether he's more Borg/Nadal-like, or more Wilander-like. Or if, as you say, he can stay healthy.

And a bit of clarification: I group Borg and Nadal in terms of talent and peak dominance, even though Nadal has had the far greater career. I think you could even make the case that Borg's peak of 1978-80 was better than Nadal ever was, though I would counter and say that Nadal had several seasons just as good, but they were more spread out (I was going down a rabbit hole and concluded that Borg's 78-80 was the second best three-year span in Open Era history, behind only Roger's 04-06 or 05-07).

So while I think we're safely out of the "Hewitt-zone" for Alcaraz - I just think he's better than Lleyton ever was, and that third Slam sort of puts him in a different atmosphere - there's still a lot of time before we know if he's more Borg-like, Nadal-like, or Wilander-like. Most likely somewhere between the latter two, I would guess.

Anyhow, when I look at tennis greats of the Open Era, I think in terms of the following tiers:

GOAT TIER: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver (full career)
INNER CIRCLE GREATS: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Rosewall (full career), Gonzales (full career)
LESSER GREATS: Newcombe (full career), Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Murray
NEAR GREATS: Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt, maybe one or two more

Tilden would be inner circle or GOAT, and guys like Kramer, Vines, Budge, Perry, RIggs, Emerson, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman, Drobny, etc as lesser to inner circle.

Anyhow, I think Alcaraz is almost certainly going to end up at least in the Lesser Greats, but I think he has a real chance of being in the inner circle. While Sinner could be just as good, until he wins that important second Slam, his floor is that of a near great. And who knows who might join them...Medvedev really only needs another Slam to join the near greats, and it is far too soon to tell with guys like Mensik and the guy who is sneaking up as a personal favorite, Joao Fonseca.

Looks as if you're elevating Murray due to the competition he had to deal with! Makes sense, but IMO he's nowhere near as accomplished as others listed as "Near Great," much less "Lesser Great!" He was only #1 for about 5 min. in comparison to Courier & Hewitt alone! Agassi, Wilander, Becker, & Edberg have so many more majors as well being "Lesser Greats!" Good post regardless! It's the convos I like to have! THX!

 

[El Dude]

Looks as if you're elevating Murray due to the competition he had to deal with! Makes sense, but IMO he's nowhere near as accomplished as others listed as "Near Great," much less "Lesser Great!" He was only #1 for about 5 min. in comparison to Courier & Hewitt alone! Agassi, Wilander, Becker, & Edberg have so many more majors as well being "Lesser Greats!" Good post regardless! It's the convos I like to have! THX!

I think all things told, he's on a similar level as Edberg and Wilander - so many deep runs, and that great 2016 season which is possibly the best single-Slam year of the Open Era.

One of the things I like about stat systems is that the offer a deeper picture of overall results than the usual discourse, that mostly focuses on Slam titles and occasional other titles. I figure that reaching a Slam final is arguably more impressive than, say, winning a Masters. It involves winning six best of five matches, vs. five or six best of three. In that regard, the ATP point system does a good job, even if we don't normally consider a Slam final worth 60% (or now 65%) the value of a Slam title. But in terms of difficulty, it is pretty accurate, imo.

 

[Fiero425]

I think all things told, he's on a similar level as Edberg and Wilander - so many deep runs, and that great 2016 season which is possibly the best single-Slam year of the Open Era.

One of the things I like about stat systems is that the offer a deeper picture of overall results than the usual discourse, that mostly focuses on Slam titles and occasional other titles. I figure that reaching a Slam final is arguably more impressive than, say, winning a Masters. It involves winning six best of five matches, vs. five or six best of three. In that regard, the ATP point system does a good job, even if we don't normally consider a Slam final worth 60% (or now 65%) the value of a Slam title. But in terms of difficulty, it is pretty accurate, imo.

Who or WTF are you talking about? Novak was the one w/ the stellar great year of 2016 only to drop the YE #1 to Murray in the final of the YEC! Novak won 2 majors, was in the final of the USO & YEC, took 4 Masters titles, & completed his Nole-Slam at the FO earlier! Maybe I'm not seeing something! I get major tourney matches are worth more, but to the extent you're going; NYAH! Murray lost in 2 major finals to Novak, won Wimbl. for a 2nd time, & played every 500 level tourney out there to catch Djokovic and stole the YE #1! That's how Murray did it!

 

[El Dude]

Who or WTF are you talking about? Novak was the one w/ the stellar great year of 2016 only to drop the YE #1 to Murray in the final of the YEC! Novak won 2 majors, was in the final of the USO & YEC, took 4 Masters titles, & completed his Nole-Slam at the FO earlier! Maybe I'm not seeing something! I get major tourney matches are worth more, but to the extent you're going; NYAH! Murray lost in 2 major finals to Novak, won Wimbl. for a 2nd time, & played every 500 level tourney out there to catch Djokovic and stole the YE #1! That's how Murray did it!

I didn't say anything about Novak's performance in 2016 or how it compares to Andy's. I was merely saying that 2016 was arguably the best single-Slam season in the Open Era. Is there a better one? I'll hang up and wait for your response to what I actually wrote.

Anyhow, bitch all you want, but Novak let the #1 slip from his grasp that year, fading in the second half. Andy deserves kudos for his amazing run to snatch the #1...he didn't "steal" it from Novak in the final, but won it fair and square. The points are what they are, and Andy earned the most.