"How Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic changed tennis' history"

[tented]

Interesting article:

"How Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic changed tennis' history - and its future"

 

[Moxie]

Very good overview of where tennis was, and is now, in terms of players' focus and the way Slams were considered. One comment mentioned that Pete may have been the first to concentrate on the Majors. That's probably true. Also, I don't think there was ever a GOAT conversation before Sampras, beyond, perhaps, cursory nod to The Rocket.

I was surprised that "some players" didn't consider the French Open that important. (Newcombe was mentioned as saying that he focused on Wimbledon, the USO, and DC.) It has been said here before in discussions, about the FO, but I wonder if that was just amongst the players who didn't play well on clay, since the others were played on the lawns for so long.

 

[Federberg]

Very good overview of where tennis was, and is now, in terms of players' focus and the way Slams were considered. One comment mentioned that Pete may have been the first to concentrate on the Majors. That's probably true. Also, I don't think there was ever a GOAT conversation before Sampras, beyond, perhaps, cursory nod to The Rocket.

I was surprised that "some players" didn't consider the French Open that important. (Newcombe was mentioned as saying that he focused on Wimbledon, the USO, and DC.) It has been said here before in discussions, about the FO, but I wonder if that was just amongst the players who didn't play well on clay, since the others were played on the lawns for so long.

No it's certainly not just the players who didn't play well on clay. Even Llendl skipped it one year. It got its cachet in the mid to late 80s. I guess a relative oldie like me will always have a bias for Wimbledon and Flushing because they've always been the big 2. Not because Roger won both of those for 5 consecutive years

 

[shawnbm]

In regards to what Moxie and FedBerg say about the French, it simply was not talked about as much in international tennis when it exploded in the 1970s tennis "rock" era of Connors-Borg-McEnroe. Since most marketing dollars flowed from the USA back then (and certainly the increase in tennis coverage on television) the US Open was always prominent, along with Wimbledon. It was the historicity of these two events that got most of the press and that all the really big players played. New York went from grass to green clay and then settled in on hard court in the space of four years. Wimbledon remained the ancient grass court jewel and the French (until Borg made it more of a headliner after winning it so many times) was the major that was won mostly by clay courters who hardly won anything off of that surface (the Swede and Vilas were notable exceptions). They tended to be Europeans or South Americans who played most of the year in Europe, or at least that was the perception of many in the USA back then. Pannetta, Orantes, Noah and others only fared well on the red clay over there, or that was (again) the perception. I think that is why SW19 and New York held a special position (Australia was too far away for most in the 1970s) amongst the majors--they were simply the best known and marketed. I agree that things changed with the Sampras-Agassi-Courier era and the internalization of tennis in that era right under their noses with Bruguera, Gomez, Gaston, Muster and the rest. I question how big an impact Wilander's 1987 and Agassi's capturing the French turned out to be in terms of making the quest for all four being a really big deal.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

article is true..in the 1980s I don't recall much chatter about "who won what number of major titles" at all.

it just was not on the radar.

 

[shawnbm]

I agree with that above. Frankly, it was really only Wimbledon and then New York, then the end of the year equivalent to the WTF--usually at Madison Square Garden. The Lipton was then considered the biggest event other than the majors and was called the 5th major back then. Buckholtz was a very influential and powerful force in tennis back then.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

article is true..in the 1980s I don't recall much chatter about "who won what number of major titles" at all.

it just was not on the radar.

Agree...the whole thing started once Pete started to get close..and the media machine and Nike took over.

 

[Federberg]

I agree with that above. Frankly, it was really only Wimbledon and then New York, then the end of the year equivalent to the WTF--usually at Madison Square Garden. The Lipton was then considered the biggest event other than the majors and was called the 5th major back then. Buckholtz was a very influential and powerful force in tennis back then.

Yup agreed. Which is one of the reasons I find it amusing when some folks try to downgrade the WTF!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with that above. Frankly, it was really only Wimbledon and then New York, then the end of the year equivalent to the WTF--usually at Madison Square Garden. The Lipton was then considered the biggest event other than the majors and was called the 5th major back then. Buckholtz was a very influential and powerful force in tennis back then.

Yup agreed. Which is one of the reasons I find it amusing when some folks try to downgrade the WTF!

While it is possible to win a GS without facing a top 10 opponent, it is just not possible
to do so in WTF. You need to win against a minimum of three different top 8 players,
most often four different top 8 players and sometimes even five different top 8 players
to lift the trophy. Also, at the group stage mere winning may not be good enough and
winning efficiently may play a role in reaching semifinals. That is another reason why
folks should consider WTF an important event other than the fact that it was considered
so historically (and not because Fed has six WTF titles and Rafa has none).

DC is also considered historically an important event and should continue to be considered
so in my opinion. However, DC should not be used to evaluate individual greatness of
players as just one individual cannot win DC for his country (and not because Rafa
four DC titles and Fed has none so far)

 

[El Dude]

Good article - I only just read it now.

I've dabbled with formulas for comparing the value of different tournaments and there's just no one formula that works. I mean, how to compare the 1974 Australian Open to 1984 to 2014?

Even if we take the easy route and value Slams equally, how to compare Masters and other tournaments? For yearly rankings, saying that a Masters has half the value (1000 vs. 2000 pts) as a Slam is fine, but in terms of historical greatness, it is far less. But how much less? And where does the WTF fit in?

Truly, it is a puzzle.

In terms of all-time greatness, I think you have to consider the following things in rough order of importance:
1. Grand Slam championships
2. Other big tournament championships (in order - WTF and other year-end tournaments, Masters, Olympics)
3. Winning percentage
4. Total tournaments won
5. Grand Slam results other than championships
6. Other big tournament results other than championships
7. Minor tournament championships (ATP 500, 250)

Or something like that. The point being, the weight has to be towards the top of the list. A Grand Slam win is historically worth more than two Masters wins, but how much more? Tricky.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

you look at Australian open draws pre 1983 and it looks like an atp250 event today. filled up with mainly lesser players.

it was crazy starting that event on Christmas eve and going through to early January..as if top players were going to give up festive holidays with family.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Good article - I only just read it now.

I've dabbled with formulas for comparing the value of different tournaments and there's just no one formula that works. I mean, how to compare the 1974 Australian Open to 1984 to 2014?

Even if we take the easy route and value Slams equally, how to compare Masters and other tournaments? For yearly rankings, saying that a Masters has half the value (1000 vs. 2000 pts) as a Slam is fine, but in terms of historical greatness, it is far less. But how much less? And where does the WTF fit in?

Truly, it is a puzzle.

In terms of all-time greatness, I think you have to consider the following things in rough order of importance:
1. Grand Slam championships
2. Other big tournament championships (in order - WTF and other year-end tournaments, Masters, Olympics)
3. Winning percentage
4. Total tournaments won
5. Grand Slam results other than championships
6. Other big tournament results other than championships
7. Minor tournament championships (ATP 500, 250)

Or something like that. The point being, the weight has to be towards the top of the list. A Grand Slam win is historically worth more than two Masters wins, but how much more? Tricky.

Surely, item 4 above should have more weight than item 3. For example, a 75% winning match record with no titles (because the player always loses the finals or earlier) is definitely inferior to a 60% winning match record with 10 titles.

 

[Federberg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In terms of historical significance the WTF is superior to the Olympics. I see the Olympics as a sort of DC derivative. It's your country vs individual glory. It's important no question. But has a slightly different flavour

 

[DarthFed]

The Olympics is different from DC because it isn't reliant on other players (singles that is). I get a big kick out of McEnroe and others who use Roger's lack of a Davis Cup title against him. Roger can't control the talent born in his country just like Rafa didn't control having 4 other top 20-30 players to have on his team. The Davis Cup is 100% meaningless in evaluating a player's career greatness. The Olympic Gold on the other hand is a nice resume booster.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The Olympics is different from DC because it isn't reliant on other players (singles that is). I get a big kick out of McEnroe and others who use Roger's lack of a Davis Cup title against him. Roger can't control the talent born in his country just like Rafa didn't control having 4 other top 20-30 players to have on his team. The Davis Cup is 100% meaningless in evaluating a player's career greatness. The Olympic Gold on the other hand is a nice resume booster.

Definitely Olympics (singles event) is dependent just on one individual and so it should
be considered when evaluating the greatness of individual players. Having said that certain
aspects of the Olympics make it less important in comparison to WTF as well as Masters 1000
events. Here are some of those aspects.

1. Limitation on number of players from the same country (4). Even if a country
has six top 10 players, theoretically speaking, only top 4 will be allowed to
participate in the Olympics denying even a chance to win the Olympics for the
other players.

2. They rig the draw to ensure that two players from the same country end up
in different halves and if there are more than two players from the same country
they end up in different quarters.

I would not change the rules above as they make sense for Olympics. However,
they reduce the possibility of really the best player winning the event. Hence, it
should have lesser role in comparison to both WTF and ATP 1000 events.

There is a reason why they finally settled on 1500 points for the WTF, 1000
points for ATP 1000 Masters events and 750 points for the Olympics winners.
It correctly captures the relative importance of the second tier events (the
first tier, obviously, being the GS events) and settles the pecking order
between them.

 

[Federberg]

^Well said GSM you captured the essence of my point

 

[Kieran]

I wouldn't count the Olympics at all, even though Rafa won it. It's a bauble, it says nothing about tennis greatness. Just rich tennis tourists gaining reflected glory from an event made precious by magnificent athletes like Jesse Owens and Michael Phelps.

There's a lot of sports where the Olympics is the only meaningful measure of greatness, and in these sports the athletes train specifically for the Olympics, and World and European Championships, Commonwealth Games, and so on. Tennis isn't a part of this, and all it contributes, far as I can see, is self-serving players who want to associate themselves with something that isn't tennis related.

We have our majors, our MS titles and tournaments around the world which are essential and specific to tennis. The Olympics doesn't mean anything to me, as far as tennis goes...

 

[DarthFed]

The Olympics is different from DC because it isn't reliant on other players (singles that is). I get a big kick out of McEnroe and others who use Roger's lack of a Davis Cup title against him. Roger can't control the talent born in his country just like Rafa didn't control having 4 other top 20-30 players to have on his team. The Davis Cup is 100% meaningless in evaluating a player's career greatness. The Olympic Gold on the other hand is a nice resume booster.

Definitely Olympics (singles event) is dependent just on one individual and so it should
be considered when evaluating the greatness of individual players. Having said that certain
aspects of the Olympics make it less important in comparison to WTF as well as Masters 1000
events. Here are some of those aspects.

1. Limitation on number of players from the same country (4). Even if a country
has six top 10 players, theoretically speaking, only top 4 will be allowed to
participate in the Olympics denying even a chance to win the Olympics for the
other players.

2. They rig the draw to ensure that two players from the same country end up
in different halves and if there are more than two players from the same country
they end up in different quarters.

I would not change the rules above as they make sense for Olympics. However,
they reduce the possibility of really the best player winning the event. Hence, it
should have lesser role in comparison to both WTF and ATP 1000 events.

There is a reason why they finally settled on 1500 points for the WTF, 1000
points for ATP 1000 Masters events and 750 points for the Olympics winners.
It correctly captures the relative importance of the second tier events (the
first tier, obviously, being the GS events) and settles the pecking order
between them.

All valid points but at the end of the day I think the vast majority of the players want an Olympic Gold over anything except a GS title. What you described shows that it is no more difficult/demanding than an average MS event (it is actually weaker) but that doesn't mean it is less important. The ranking points are important of course but the way the system is set up you'd say 2 MS titles = 1 GS title and I think there isn't a fool alive who would prefer 2 MS titles to 1 GS.

I don't consider the lack of a singles gold as a knock against a player, especially since it is once every 4 years and is not on a unique surface. Federer is a classic example, the last 3 Olympics have been played on fast hard courts and grass. Despite not winning a gold I'd say his combined 12 slams and numerous other tourney wins shows that he can play quite well on those surfaces. But those who win it get a nice booster IMO. This is different than Nole not winning RG yet and even Rafa not winning YEC. As of now both have not won the big event on a specific surface (clay and indoors).

 

[El Dude]

It seems that we're coming to the idea that the following three factors are not necessarily synonymous:
1) Difficulty of a title
2) Desirability of a title (to a player)
3) Historical legacy of a title (towards a player's "greatness legacy")

A Grand Slam is the highest in all three, with Wimbledon ranking highest followed by the US Open and Roland Garros shortly behind, and then the Australian Open. After Grand Slams you have the WTF as a clear second fiddle, but also above the rest of tournaments. Where it gets tricky is Masters vs. Olympics. I'd say the Masters is more difficult but perhaps a tad less desirable and with similar historical weight. After that there's a big drop to ATP 500 and 250. Davis Cup seems almost in the category of doubles - entirely irrelevant to a player's resume.

So maybe, in terms of relative value of historical greatness, it is something like this, with all numbers being a precentage of a Grand Slam:

100 Grand Slam
40 WTF
20 Masters, Olympics
5 ATP 500
3 ATP 250

Or something like that. If we want to break it down further with Slams, we'd have to talk about years - and then it becomes really messy.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The Olympics is different from DC because it isn't reliant on other players (singles that is). I get a big kick out of McEnroe and others who use Roger's lack of a Davis Cup title against him. Roger can't control the talent born in his country just like Rafa didn't control having 4 other top 20-30 players to have on his team. The Davis Cup is 100% meaningless in evaluating a player's career greatness. The Olympic Gold on the other hand is a nice resume booster.

I think that is an unfair statement by you Darth, if Fed had secured a single's gold medal, u may feel differently