Cool topic. Mate, didn't McEnroe in 1984 and Pete Sampras in 1993 both have stellar seasons or just as dominant? Also and its before my time, Jimmy Connors (1974).
So I wasn't around for any of those. I'm too young for that. I was alive for Sampras. But I was too young to see him in 1993. Anyways. I know their records somewhat well and can look them up. And yeah, all three of those were incredibly dominant. Probably the most dominant was actually Connors. If the French hadn't banned him for his WTT play, he would have had to deal with Borg, but that was Borg's first. So he was hardly at his dominant best yet. I think it's likely Connors would have been the next guy, just 5 years after Laver, to win the calendar year slam. But alas, it worked out the way it did. But I'd put Djokovic above Sampras because Sampras never really had a shot on the clay. And his game was still always more offensive. Djokovic plays a ton of offense, especially against lesser players. But against the best so much of his game is about taking their biggest weapons and neutralizing them. Which he did better than perhaps anyone we've ever seen. He's the closest descendant of Agassi one can find probably. He's just taller, has a better serve, and a much better mover than Agassi. And so he's been better. Also, he doesn't have the demons Agassi apparently had.
As for McEnroe. I'm gonna be honest. He's my weak spot in the history of the game. Well, one of many. But while I can tell you that I've repeatedly heard that's he's probably the most talented man to ever pick up a racket, I mean, I just haven't seen him play really. I've seen the Wimbledon tiebreaker from 1980 several times. Seen a couple other matches here and there. But Idk. I guess just because he gets over shadowed by Borg and I don't care for how much he berated umps. But his doubles success is probably, to me, what sets him apart. While so few singles greats on the men's side have cared about doubles, he gave it his time and effort and won more slams in doubles than in singles. He's brilliant. Which, while he often annoys me as a commentator, he still always impresses me with his thoughts about what he's watching. He's that brilliant.
And... I should say that I'm one of these guys that I do think Roger, Rafa, and Novak are all probably the best we've ever seen. But. I am pretty much over the GOAT debate. Because it is SO hard to compare players from different eras. Because of racket and string tech. And because of fitness levels. And because of courts. The USO was on grass from '68 to 74' and green clay or hard clay from '75 to '78 (hello Chris Evert's 4 straight US Open titles after falling in the SF 4 straight times on grass). Same with the AO. It was on grass through '87. And nobody went down to play it because it was thousands of miles away and flights weren't as cheap I guess. Idk. It was quite the trek from what I understand. Hence Borg having zero AO's. He played it less than 5 times I think. And that's largely because.... one of the biggest reasons it's hard to compare eras. Basically every pro from before the 90s will tell you that they didn't prioritize slams like we do today. It was about the tour and being #1. Which makes sense because they were nascent tours. They cared about building them up. It was still relatively new. But also about being able to say they were the best in the world. And the money back then was no where near what it is today. So you played a TON of tournaments (a la Connors).
Going back to Connors and McEnroe. Connors played the AO twice in '74 and '75. He won it in '74. He could have easily gone down there and played with Rosewall and Newcombe and won a couple more and probably gotten closer to Borg's total. And Rosewall wouldn't have been at 12. He may not have dominated it. But he would have won it one or two more times. Vilas won it back to back in the last 70s. Connors was still playing well. Wilander won it twice in the early 80s. Connors was still making the semis at the other slams. There's no telling what his number could be. McEnroe showed up in 1977. Didn't play the AO until 1983 and only played it 4 more times between '85 and '92. Never won it.
Meanwhile Federer has 6. Djokovic has 7. Nadal only has 1. We respect the AO on a whole other level now. Back then it was "the other slam." Partially because, I forgot to mention, it was at the end of the year (I'm sure you know this). After the US Open. These folks were tired. You take the AO out and Nadal's dominance at the French starts to take on a much greater significance and he's the guy with the most slams. Though Roger's 8 at Wimbledon is still unprecedented and nothing to sneeze at. But of course, removing an entire slam would have changed everything else anyways. Fed and Djokovic may have been more rested and or hungrier and maybe Fed finds his way through Nadal in one of those 4 earlier meetings. Though that seems unlikely to me. Or maybe he wins the French before Rafa shows up. Because he has more urgency. Or not. We don't know. Which is why I shouldn't have even mentioned removing it because you can't. And that's the point, for this era and the others. You can't take the AO away now but you can't really fault for the other guys for not going to the AO when no one went. AND when slams weren't how they held themselves up against each other or against history. I'm not sure they even worried about history like we do today because they were the start of the history. Or at least the Open history. They were the pace setters. The ones who had to be passed.
With all that said. I do think Djokovic's level was insane. Then and now it just makes me so mad that he can be that good. That he can be everywhere. Trusts himself enough to go for it and more often than not makes whatever insane shot he's going for. We often talk about players in matches thinking they needed to make a shot too good. Everyone does it. Including Djokovic. But I feel like he and Nadal do it less than anyone else. And having heard McEnroe (an avowed Nadal lover) say that Djokovic may be the best we've ever seen I think I can say what I've said with some confidence. Even though I'd love to be able to say that Fed's highest level is the highest we've seen. But, honestly Fed's highest level may even be behind Nadal's highest level. 2006 was amazing. But Nadal's intensity takes the cake over either of these guys if you ask me. But Djokovic seemed to have zero weaknesses there for a bit. Wawrinka illuminated his weakness against power there a couple times (a la Nadal against Tsonga at the 2008 AO or Soderling at the 2009 FO and Fed against Berdych early on or DelPo or also Soderling at the 2010 FO). In the end you just have to say they all had their best years and all have their strength's and weaknesses and it's been a pleasure to watch them all battle with each other.
I'm sorry I got off topic and went super long. I'm long winded. It's my greatest weakness. I can't help myself.
