Great, All-time Great...Legend?

[Kieran]

We're having a nice discussion on the Novak thread about what a player needs to achieve to grow from all-time great to Legend in the sport.

The distinction being made, and it's a fair one, is that there are players who are obviously great, like Becker and Edberg, but others who "will stand the test of time," the GOATS, the ones who dominate their rivals and set all manner of ridiculous records: Federer, Pete and Rafa being among the names mentioned.

Now, obviously these men stand above Becker and Edberg in the pantheon, but does this still exclude the lesser men from being considered legends of the sport? I mean, we still discuss Becker and Edberg with reverence, when it comes to their games and their achievements. Becker won Wimbledon aged 17, which is certainly the stuff of legend.

DarthFed asked a good question: What is the cut off?

It's hard to answer. I mean, surely McEnroe is a legend in the sport, and he only has seven slams.

What do you think?

 

[calitennis127]

About Djokovic particularly: he is a legend at the Australian Open, at the Master Series level, on slow hard courts, and at indoor events.

Beyond that, he is not a legend.

 

[calitennis127]

I consider Nadal a clay court legend and a Wimbledon legend for winning the 2008 match, even if he has only won the event one other time.

Nadal is also a legend for being one of the rare few to win the career GS.

At the World Tour Finals or at Cincinnati or Miami, he is no legend.

 

[Iona16]

I consider Nadal a clay court legend and a Wimbledon legend for winning the 2008 match, even if he has only won the event one other time.

Nadal is also a legend for being one of the rare few to win the career GS.

At the World Tour Finals or at Cincinnati or Miami, he is no legend.

You're not being serious Cali surely.

For me Nadal and Federer aren't just tennis legends. They are sporting legends. They could both retire tomorrow and their legacy is already assured.

I think Djokovic can still achieve a great deal in tennis. He's already a tennis great in my mind.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I can hear the introduction 20 years from now as Nadal is introduced at Philippe Chatrier to hand over the trophy:

Please welcome, 11 time Roland Garros winner, 18 time Grand Slam champion, holder of the most Masters 1000 events in history, former world number 1, a legend of the sport...except in the great states of Ohio and Florida: Rafael Nadal!

 

[Front242]

^ :laydownlaughing

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Impossible task really. I mean, isn't Connors a legend when you look at how many matches and tournaments he won, how consistent he was? He did not win a whole lot of slams though. So, what do you go by? Slams, matches, 1000s, weeks at number one, WTFs? If we go by weeks at number 1, Rafa has a long way to go to be a legend, but in my book, he was a legend long time ago. To me Muster is and always going to be a legend , just because of how he defied the odds and came back from a devastating injury to have one of the best clay court seasons ever.

This whole thing is very subjective I think.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anyway, provided we live in a world where legendary status in tennis is not geographically segregated, the true tennis legends in the open era, IMO are: Federer, Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Borg.

To me, these are the clear elite. The ones whose accomplishments, status, dominance, mystique, popularity, iconic nature, whatever you want to discuss, stand out above the rest. These are the players that, when you talk to someone who doesn't know much about the sport, you have to mention. No ifs or buts.

Guys like Agassi, Lendl, Connors, and Johnny Mac are all-time greats. As in, they are among the greatest to ever play the game, but their achievements do not warrant legendary status, certainly not when you compare it to the group mentioned above.

Now to Kieran's point about Mac being a legend. I guess you could argue he is, but really, it's more due to his combination of talent/memorable moments/outbursts/meltdowns/rivalries etc... and not strictly on tennis achievements.

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, rather than a specific Slam count, I think it has more to do with a sustained period of being the greatest player in the game - and more than just a great year or two. This includes Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, and Nadal.

The next tier down includes players like Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, and Djokovic - great players but not quite as dominant.

The other thing, though, is that different eras were more or less competitive. Edberg and Becker peaked during one of the most competitive eras - the late 80s and early 90s, probably a harder context to play in than, say, the mid to late 90s when Sampras dominated, or the early to mid 00s when Federer dominated.

In the end, though, it really is a matter of semantics. By "legend" to you mean a GOAT candidate? If that's the case, it is easy: Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and maybe Borg. Going back further, you've got Rosewall, Gonzales, and Tilden to consider.

Or do you mean someone who is considered a legend in the game? Then you might want to include Wilander, Edberg and Becker as they're certainly quite well remembered. A player like John Newcombe isn't that well remembered, but he was essentially the Becker or Edberg of the 60s and early 70s. And even though players like Connors, Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe aren't considered GOAT candidates I wouldn't want to preclude the appellation of "legendary" to them.

So I might offer some categories:

Tier One - True Legends (GOAT candidates): Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Borg
Tier Two - Legends: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzales
Tier Three - Lesser Legends: Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Emerson, Djokovic (although he'll likely join the next category up before he's through)

Or something like that.

 

[calitennis127]

I consider Nadal a clay court legend and a Wimbledon legend for winning the 2008 match, even if he has only won the event one other time.

Nadal is also a legend for being one of the rare few to win the career GS.

At the World Tour Finals or at Cincinnati or Miami, he is no legend.

You're not being serious Cali surely.

For me Nadal and Federer aren't just tennis legends. They are sporting legends. They could both retire tomorrow and their legacy is already assured.

I think Djokovic can still achieve a great deal in tennis. He's already a tennis great in my mind.

That's not really my point. That other simplistic bonehead poster of course didn't get it.

The point is that there is no definable boundary and if you know anything about tennis, you have to think in terms of events and venues. If I was just a casual fan, then yes, I would see Nadal and Federer as pure "legends" through and through, but having watched a great deal of it I have too informed a perspective to not see the flaws.

I don't consider Nadal's performances in the 2008 Miami final or the 2014 Miami final to be the stuff of legends. Maybe the Nadal cadre does, because they remember those two backhand passing shot winners he had in both matches combined.

But this conversation was more about Djokovic. He is not among the super elite in terms of Slams, but if you look at some of his specific runs, you have to consider them legendary.

For instance - who is the more "legendary" player at Melbourne? Djokovic or Nadal? There is no comparison.

Personally, my arbitrary standards for what makes a "legend" are either 10+ Slams or the Career Grand Slam, but there are problems with making the standard that simple.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Murray is a great, Djokovic an all-time great, Rafa and Roger are legends. Murray and Djokovic will achieve more in their careers but I don't think they'll ever achieve legend status.

 

[DarthFed]

I consider Nadal a clay court legend and a Wimbledon legend for winning the 2008 match, even if he has only won the event one other time.

Nadal is also a legend for being one of the rare few to win the career GS.

At the World Tour Finals or at Cincinnati or Miami, he is no legend.

You're not being serious Cali surely.

For me Nadal and Federer aren't just tennis legends. They are sporting legends. They could both retire tomorrow and their legacy is already assured.

I think Djokovic can still achieve a great deal in tennis. He's already a tennis great in my mind.

That's not really my point. That other simplistic bonehead poster of course didn't get it.

The point is that there is no definable boundary and if you know anything about tennis, you have to think in terms of events and venues. If I was just a casual fan, then yes, I would see Nadal and Federer as pure "legends" through and through, but having watched a great deal of it I have too informed a perspective to not see the flaws.

I don't consider Nadal's performances in the 2008 Miami final or the 2014 Miami final to be the stuff of legends. Maybe the Nadal cadre does, because they remember those two backhand passing shot winners he had in both matches combined.

But this conversation was more about Djokovic. He is not among the super elite in terms of Slams, but if you look at some of his specific runs, you have to consider them legendary.

For instance - who is the more "legendary" player at Melbourne? Djokovic or Nadal? There is no comparison.

Personally, my arbitrary standards for what makes a "legend" are either 10+ Slams or the Career Grand Slam, but there are problems with making the standard that simple.

Djokovic's only legendary run was 2011. He has definitely got a long ways to go to be considered a legend and it's far from certain he will get there given his last couple years. I kind of agree with the 10+ slams being a good benchmark. But the idea of splitting up legendary status on each tournament is silly, it is the resume they produce across all the tournaments they've played.

 

[Kieran]

So I might offer some categories:

Tier One - True Legends (GOAT candidates): Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Borg
Tier Two - Legends: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzales
Tier Three - Lesser Legends: Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Emerson, Djokovic (although he'll likely join the next category up before he's through)

Or something like that.

I like that, El Dude: it seems absurd to me, and some form of denial, to say that McEnroe and Connors, Becker and Edberg, aren't to some extent legends in the sport. These men are renowned beyond even tennis, and yes, some of it is due to bad behaviour, but most tennis aficionados would agree that McEnroe is the most unorthodox natural genius to ever wield a stick.

Connors, Edberg and Becker have achieved things which are the stuff of legend. I wonder if we're mixing things up by reducing these status to slam counts, too, although I see you have the seven timer, Mats, in with the class of six-slam winners. Mats gets short shrift in these tables because he wasn't so pronounced as others, but his achievements on clay alone in the jungle 80's are legendary.

I'm usually finicky about definitions and I love to brandish my pitchfork at bandwagons, so I'd be cautious on how I say things, but to me personally, I have no problem in thinking that these lesser greats will be long remembered by fans and non-fans too, as tennis legends - even if only as lesser ones...

 

[Kieran]

I consider Nadal a clay court legend and a Wimbledon legend for winning the 2008 match, even if he has only won the event one other time.

Nadal is also a legend for being one of the rare few to win the career GS.

At the World Tour Finals or at Cincinnati or Miami, he is no legend.

You're not being serious Cali surely.

For me Nadal and Federer aren't just tennis legends. They are sporting legends. They could both retire tomorrow and their legacy is already assured.

I think Djokovic can still achieve a great deal in tennis. He's already a tennis great in my mind.

That's not really my point. That other simplistic bonehead poster of course didn't get it.

The point is that there is no definable boundary and if you know anything about tennis, you have to think in terms of events and venues. If I was just a casual fan, then yes, I would see Nadal and Federer as pure "legends" through and through, but having watched a great deal of it I have too informed a perspective to not see the flaws.

I don't consider Nadal's performances in the 2008 Miami final or the 2014 Miami final to be the stuff of legends. Maybe the Nadal cadre does, because they remember those two backhand passing shot winners he had in both matches combined.

But this conversation was more about Djokovic. He is not among the super elite in terms of Slams, but if you look at some of his specific runs, you have to consider them legendary.

For instance - who is the more "legendary" player at Melbourne? Djokovic or Nadal? There is no comparison.

Personally, my arbitrary standards for what makes a "legend" are either 10+ Slams or the Career Grand Slam, but there are problems with making the standard that simple.

I agree with this, Cali, while also accepting that if a player won Miami alone for ten seasons running that this would be considered peculiar, more than legendary.

But there are problems making the standards simple, and Roy A. Emerson (the "A" stands for "Asterisk") is usually the chief victim in these arbitrary benchmarks. Nole has beaten Rafa 19 times - that's legendary. He's been #1 for 104 weeks, and he's been a chief factor at every slam since Wimbledon in 2010. He may not be remembered as Nadal will be, but he's set the tally in Oz, which makes him a form of local legend - but in the gigantic world of the majors.

Also, if simply totting up slam numbers are the criteria, we run into the same problem the GOAT Wars have, which is that the criteria is suspect. Or even career slam: on Sunday, Nole most likely would have joined this few, if Nadal's back had torn like it did in Oz. He gets the W, obviously, but would that mean he's in company then with Federer and Nadal, for instance, as a full-blown Legend of the sport, even though he'd still be ten slams short of Roger?

 

[brokenshoelace]

So I might offer some categories:

Tier One - True Legends (GOAT candidates): Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Borg
Tier Two - Legends: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzales
Tier Three - Lesser Legends: Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Emerson, Djokovic (although he'll likely join the next category up before he's through)

Or something like that.

I like that, El Dude: it seems absurd to me, and some form of denial, to say that McEnroe and Connors, Becker and Edberg, aren't to some extent legends in the sport. These men are renowned beyond even tennis, and yes, some of it is due to bad behaviour, but most tennis aficionados would agree that McEnroe is the most unorthodox natural genius to ever wield a stick.

Connors, Edberg and Becker have achieved things which are the stuff of legend. I wonder if we're mixing things up by reducing these status to slam counts, too, although I see you have the seven timer, Mats, in with the class of six-slam winners. Mats gets short shrift in these tables because he wasn't so pronounced as others, but his achievements on clay alone in the jungle 80's are legendary.

I'm usually finicky about definitions and I love to brandish my pitchfork at bandwagons, so I'd be cautious on how I say things, but to me personally, I have no problem in thinking that these lesser greats will be long remembered by fans and non-fans too, as tennis legends - even if only as lesser ones...

It's not about slam count only, it's about overall achievement, dominance, etc... If Edberg (whom I'm a huge fan of) and Becker (not so much) are legends, what does that make of Federer, Laver and company?

You could say that they too are legends, only further up the list. However, the difference in achievements, status, popularity and so on is so huge that it almost feels like a flawed comparison. I really can't mention these two in the same breath with the others. I would also really disagree that what Becker and Edberg did went beyond tennis. Very few players have actually transcended the sport: Fedal and Borg stand out in that regard.

But, you know who also did? Johnny Mac. And that's where I agree with you that the definition gets blurry, since his achievements pale by comparison. However, he's a special case, for the reason I mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as players' achievements in some carefully selected tournaments, and saying "he's not a legend at X tournament," let me put it this way: Nobody gives a crap about Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo in the US. That doesn't mean that they're not the top two sportsmen in the world in terms of popularity.

In other words, when your legendary status covers the big picture so resoundingly, nobody is going to give two $hits about the amount of winners you've hit, or didn't hit, against Davydenko in a final in Miami.

That's like saying Michael Jordan wasn't a legend against the Bad Boy Pistons (and I'm aware he beat them eventually. But then again, Nadal won Cinci eventually). Yeah, maybe he wasn't, but who cares, given everything else he's accomplished?

That doesn't mean that failure at some tournaments can't diminish your legacy. But not when that tournament is Miami, and you've won virtually every other Masters 1000 event and all the majors.

 

[Kieran]

That doesn't mean that failure at some tournaments can't diminish your legacy. But not when that tournament is Miami, and you've won virtually every other Masters 1000 event and all the majors.

Well, also especially when Borg never won the US Open and Pete never won in Paris...

 

[Ricardo]

Borg went to 4 finals, Pete barely made to a semi..... huge difference. Sampras is below the other tier players, his clay game is way below par to be comparable.

 

[coban]

Legendary status is something that is absurd at given time..
- 10 RG titles will be absurd.
- 237 weeks at #1 is absurd.

 

[Federberg]

Tennis achievements are clearly the main determinant for legendary status, I agree. But an all time great with memorable charisma probably earns legendary status as well. For example JMac might only have 7 majors, but guys please... he's a legend. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!! You go anywhere in the world and say that, the odds are people are going to know who you're talking about. If that's not the definition of legend I don't know what is..