Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[El Dude]

What do you mean by "superstar?" If you mean "great player," which is what the term means in other sports, then Lendl most definitely was a superstar. If you mean "mega-celebrity" or some such, then maybe not.

Anyhow, I think we've got three general areas to consider, as far as all-time greatness. 1) Career resume - just the stats, m'am. 2) Peak greatness - this is a mixture of stats, but also perceptions about how good a player was at his best. 3) Celebrity, mystique, and basically "sex appeal."

If we rate all 1-10, we might come up with:
Borg: 8/9.5/10 = 27.5
Lendl: 9/9/7 = 25

Borg comes out ahead. But if we take out the last part, which is wholy subjective, it is Borg 17.5 to Lendl 18 (and no, I didn't plan that).

(I'm just using these numbers to illustrate a point)

 

[Moxie]

The title count problem holds true today. David Ferrer has won 26 titles--more than Jim Courier (23) or Gustavo Kuerten (20)--but no Slams and only one Masters. 10 are ATP 500, 15 are ATP 250. On the other hand, if we go too far the other way we end up under-valuing Ferrer. The truth of the matter is that he is or was) a solid second tier, top 10 player for about a decade, and the best of that group for several years. How do you balance his career against a David Nalbandian, who was a much better player at his best, but a career half as long? (He was 9-5 vs. Nalbandian, by the way, winning the first three and last three matches they played).

Rod Laver won 200 titles, a bunch of which were presumably the "rinky-dinky" variety. That said, the better players tended to play tournaments with better payouts. This is why I see the Grand Slam Cup of the 90s as a "big title" because it had a huge pay out and attracted lots of top players, more than many Masters, but wasn't actually an ATP tournament.

Or we can look at Jimmy Connors' 109 titles, but only 26 big titles - one less than Agassi.

I think the bottom line is that no single metric, statistical or otherwise, can adequately define a player's greatness, let alone determine his weight vs. other players. This is why every ranking system uses a diversity of metrics, subjective and statistical.

A very interesting wrap-up to the conversation. And maybe following on to my conversation with @Federberg and you about Borg v. Lendl. Surely there have been/are stunning talents in tennis that have done so much that we want to quantify them and their achievements in some sort of order. However, it's almost a more interesting question, or another discussion: how do you quantify the "observably talented" v. the "solidly successful." Ferrer v. Nalbandian is an interesting comparison, and of our time. How much leeway do we give to the congenitally "talented" but perpetually under-achieving, versus the less-flashy players that put in the hard-yards and achieve quite a lot?

 

[Moxie]

What do you mean by "superstar?" If you mean "great player," which is what the term means in other sports, then Lendl most definitely was a superstar. If you mean "mega-celebrity" or some such, then maybe not.

Anyhow, I think we've got three general areas to consider, as far as all-time greatness. 1) Career resume - just the stats, m'am. 2) Peak greatness - this is a mixture of stats, but also perceptions about how good a player was at his best. 3) Celebrity, mystique, and basically "sex appeal."

If we rate all 1-10, we might come up with:
Borg: 8/9.5/10 = 27.5
Lendl: 9/9/7 = 25

Borg comes out ahead. But if we take out the last part, which is wholy subjective, it is Borg 17.5 to Lendl 18 (and no, I didn't plan that).

(I'm just using these numbers to illustrate a point)

I did mean "celebrity," and I was talking about the Borg mystique, which was the point. I didn't mean to disdain Lendl's status as a tennis super-star. Now, I'm not sure how you're getting a metric for "sex-appeal," and this is where I think you go too far with the numbers and calculations. (Borg was a 10 and Lendl was a 7? In his dreams. But no matter.) I've already said that the Borg personae over-balances his stats is some ways. However, at some point, doing a lot of what others haven't done matters. The difference between staying around long enough and being stalwart enough to accumulate a great resume ISN'T the same things as being the absolute best, or the first or the most at a thing. And at some point you have to stop looking at the stats and look at the tennis. The eye check. Borg is one of the greats because we watched him play tennis, and he was astonishingly good. Lendl never took anyone's breath away in the same fashion. For the ones that are fabulous players and have the resume, there is a reason we put them above the others. That's where the subjectivity comes in, and that's were some players drop off. I appreciate the stalwarts who played long and won a lot. I have no patience for the "talented" ones with the meek resumes, even Safin. But the fabulous ones, with the great resumes, stand out for a reason, and it isn't all about the numbers.

 

[britbox]

What do you mean by "superstar?" If you mean "great player," which is what the term means in other sports, then Lendl most definitely was a superstar. If you mean "mega-celebrity" or some such, then maybe not.

Anyhow, I think we've got three general areas to consider, as far as all-time greatness. 1) Career resume - just the stats, m'am. 2) Peak greatness - this is a mixture of stats, but also perceptions about how good a player was at his best. 3) Celebrity, mystique, and basically "sex appeal."

If we rate all 1-10, we might come up with:
Borg: 8/9.5/10 = 27.5
Lendl: 9/9/7 = 25

Borg comes out ahead. But if we take out the last part, which is wholy subjective, it is Borg 17.5 to Lendl 18 (and no, I didn't plan that).

(I'm just using these numbers to illustrate a point)

On what basis are you giving Lendl the edge on stats?

 

[britbox]

The FO was bouncing around the networks; totally taped delayed until '84 with McEnroe/Lendl IIRC! There were also multiple tours if you remember; ITF, WCT, & the Grand Prix! - I still seem to remember seeing the last set of Wilander over Vilas in '82 FO on CBS! It went to NBC after that I guess! The women continued to be delayed until noon here in Chicago so I usually knew who won before it came on! Those '85 & '86 finals killed me allowing Evert back in the winning circle of majors after being owned for years by Navratilova in the mid 80's! I turned 60 in April! I started playing in '71, was teaching by '75, played in college, & made a name for myself in the tennis circles of Chicago!

.
Who cares what the American networks covered... the world's a far bigger place than the USA. The population of Europe alone is more than twice that of the USA.

 

[Moxie]

.
Who cares what the American networks covered... the world's a far bigger place than the USA. The population of Europe alone is more than twice that of the USA.

And if I can remember back to what Fiero was ranting about, it was to say that the French Open wasn't that much of an issue in the US, as to which I disagreed. I believe he called it an "afterthought." Would you like to weigh in as to how it was seen in the UK/Europe in the 70s, if you can remember? I still contend that it was very much a thing in the US, no matter how Fiero remembers it.

 

[britbox]

In the UK in the 80s we only had three and then later four channels of terrestrial TV. The US Open was hardly covered, probably because of the time zone differences and the fact that the networks shut down during the night. There used to be some very occasional delayed highlights on one of the Saturday or Sunday sports shows like Grandstand or World of Sport.

The French Open was covered to a bigger extent - again, probably due to the time zones - mainly just big matches like semis and finals. I remember watching some FO matches live - i.e. McEnroe/Lendl. It had a bigger footprint in the UK than the US Open, and I guess throughout Europe.

Wimbledon coverage was off the scale. BBC covered it across two channels with full coverage from start to finish each day.

@Federberg might chip in with his recollection, but that's how I remember it.

 

[Moxie]

In the UK in the 80s we only had three and then later four channels of terrestrial TV. The US Open was hardly covered, probably because of the time zone differences and the fact that the networks shut down during the night. There used to be some very occasional delayed highlights on one of the Saturday or Sunday sports shows like Grandstand or World of Sport.

The French Open was covered to a bigger extent - again, probably due to the time zones - mainly just big matches like semis and finals. I remember watching some FO matches live - i.e. McEnroe/Lendl. It had a bigger footprint in the UK than the US Open, and I guess throughout Europe.

Wimbledon coverage was off the scale. BBC covered it across two channels with full coverage from start to finish each day.

Obviously, in the US, we've had loads more channels than in Britain. Even in the 60s we had 3 broadcast channels, 1 public and 2 local. Our NBC (one of the national broadcast channels,) did essentially sports all weekend. We had Wimbledon and the French Open. Also the Italian Open. Then other random tournaments. I don't know why I don't remember watching the US Open as much, but I don't. But in my experience, Wimbledon and the French were the big tennis tournaments. "Breakfast at Wimbledon" which started in 1979 was the big leap of Slam tennis live and on broadcast TV in the US.

 

[Fiero425]

And if I can remember back to what Fiero was ranting about, it was to say that the French Open wasn't that much of an issue in the US, as to which I disagreed. I believe he called it an "afterthought." Would you like to weigh in as to how it was seen in the UK/Europe in the 70s, if you can remember? I still contend that it was very much a thing in the US, no matter how Fiero remembers it.

You have to agree the French Open has always been about the "Men's Singles" title! It was esp. prominent back in the 70's because of Borg, Vilas, Panatta, & Nastase! Notice there are no American names in there and without one of them winning, it just wasn't on our radar! I remember a couple runner-ups in Gottfried & Solomon! You had Evert winning a couple titles on the ladies' side before skipping a year or 2 to play WTT with the other stars of the day; BJK leading the way with Goolagong, Navratilova, Wade! It started being won by players barely in the top 10 and how highly regarded can you take an event; sorta like those lean years "down under?" After retirement of Borg, I think it helped that Yannick Noah won in '83 over defending champion Wilander! The following season with 5 set classic of Lendl/McEnroe being played live made it golden! It's been on par with Wimbledon and the USO ever since IMO!

 

[Moxie]

You have to agree the French Open has always been about the "Men's Singles" title! It was esp. prominent back in the 70's because of Borg, Vilas, Panatta, & Nastase! Notice there are no American names in there and without one of them winning, it just wasn't on our radar! I remember a couple runner-ups in Gottfried & Solomon! You had Evert winning a couple titles on the ladies' side before skipping a year or 2 to play WTT with the other stars of the day; BJK leading the way with Goolagong, Navratilova, Wade! It started being won by players barely in the top 10 and how highly regarded can you take an event; sorta like those lean years "down under?" After retirement of Borg, I think it helped that Yannick Noah won in '83 over defending champion Wilander! The following season with 5 set classic of Lendl/McEnroe being played live made it golden! It's been on par with Wimbledon and the USO ever since IMO!

You have totally jumped the shark now. Evert winning "a couple of titles" at RG? Evert won it 9 times, and then to suggest that attention in the US went back when the Frenchman Noah won it ('83) is...looney. Pre-Borg/McEnroe, Chrissy/Martina, we already watched Wimbledon and the French Open. Once they came on the scene, there was even more tennis on TV, and solid interest in tennis and both tournaments.

 

[Fiero425]

You have totally jumped the shark now. Evert winning "a couple of titles" at RG? Evert won it 9 times, and then to suggest that attention in the US went back when the Frenchman Noah won it ('83) is...looney. Pre-Borg/McEnroe, Chrissy/Martina, we already watched Wimbledon and the French Open. Once they came on the scene, there was even more tennis on TV, and solid interest in tennis and both tournaments.

Read and understand, I said "Evert won a couple titles before skipping a couple years to play WTT!" HELLO! My memory isn't the best, but I haven't forgotten Evert holds the record with 7 FO's BTW! I guess it would be 9 with the 2 doubles' titles! Funny doubles would actually mean something to you when I've been saying Martina's the GOAT due to her winning 177 double titles to go along with 167 in singles!

 

[Federberg]

Just putting a value on "number of titles" is probably even more misleading than number of majors. In that scenario you're giving an 8 man round robin as much value as a major... not to mention you don't know who is in the field for half of those tournaments, and before the tour was more well stuctured in the modern era, there were a billion rinky dink tournaments that players entered just for a pile of cash.

I don't necessarily disagree about mickey mouse tournaments back in the day. Far from it. But let's be careful here, Lendl had a lot of longevity. He was winning stacks of titles way before he won his first slam. In fact he was often accused of being a bit of a choker in the big matches. But at what point do we start assigning values to titles? From after Lendl? Before? One things for sure, if you're a winner you're a winner. One of the ways I knew Delpo was for real was that he was cleaning up in 250s in a ridiculous way before he really broke out as a contender. I think that always holds through.

Can I take it that your challenge means that you already assign more value to Roger's 92 than Ivan's 94 or Jimmy's 106?

 

[britbox]

^ I'd take greater issue with numbers for Laver, Emerson, Rosewall etc... than Connors or Lendl. Most of Lendl's career was played on a pretty structured tour and a large part of Connors... but with regard to numbers of titles, yeah, I probably would assign more value to Federer's 92 than Ivan and Jimmy's 94 & 106. Federer played on a structured tour and I'm guessing the number of bigger titles he won within the 92 would outweigh the other two enough to close the gap... and no I'm not just basing it on slam counts, but big tournaments in general - YECs, Masters/Grand Prix equivalents etc. Title numbers in isolation is misleading because you're basically assigning the same value to a 250 as you would a major.

 

[Federberg]

^ I'd take greater issue with numbers for Laver, Emerson, Rosewall etc... than Connors or Lendl. Most of Lendl's career was played on a pretty structured tour and a large part of Connors... but with regard to numbers of titles, yeah, I probably would assign more value to Federer's 92 than Ivan and Jimmy's 94 & 106. Federer played on a structured tour and I'm guessing the number of bigger titles he won within the 92 would outweigh the other two enough to close the gap... and no I'm not just basing it on slam counts, but big tournaments in general - YECs, Masters/Grand Prix equivalents etc. Title numbers in isolation is misleading because you're basically assigning the same value to a 250 as you would a major.

Ok, so let me ask you this question. How many 250s would a player have to win to have the same standing as a guy who only won one title... a slam.

 

[britbox]

Ok, so let me ask you this question. How many 250s would a player have to win to have the same standing as a guy who only won one title... a slam.

Not sure you can define it easily but ATP/ITF would say 8 of them with regard to ranking points. 250 points versus 2000 points... but ask a player and I think most of them would give up far more ATP 250s than that for winning a major on the current tour.

 

[Federberg]

Not sure you can define it easily but ATP/ITF would say 8 of them with regard to ranking points. 250 points versus 2000 points... but ask a player and I think most of them would give up far more ATP 250s than that for winning a major on the current tour.

Oh I don't doubt it. But at the end of a player's career, how do we score it? For example let's compare David Ferrer to Petr Korda. Ferrer has 26 titles, no slam obviously. Korda has only 10 titles including 1 slam. To my mind they've had equally successful careers roughly speaking. But Korda will get more shine for the AO win. It's a toughie. Listen I'm not disagreeing with you re: slam importance. But at some point we have to have some sort of agreed upon formula. Otherwise a guy could win 50 titles and no slams versus a guy who wins one slam. To my mind the 50 title winning guy has been more successful.

 

[El Dude]

On what basis are you giving Lendl the edge on stats?

Borg obviously has the edge in Slams, 11 to 8 - also win % (but that's largely due to retiring early). But in almost every other way, Lendl's resume is superior. Consider:

*94 to 64 titles, or +30 titles for Lendl
*35 to 28 big titles, or +7 big titles for Lendl
*270 to 109 weeks at #1, or +161 weeks for Lendl

It really is a classic case of higher peak (Borg) vs. greater longevity (Lendl), but Lendl's peak was also very high. I also think Lendl played in a harder era, his prime overlapping several generations of greats in their prime year. Borg had to face a Connors and Vilas on one side, McEnroe/Lendl on the other, but Lendl had to face Connors/Vilas, Borg/McEnroe, but also Wilander/Edberg/Becker and Agassi/Courier/Sampras.

Again, my point is not to say definitively that Lendl was greater than Borg, but they're a lot closer than historical memory and surface stats tell us. I go back and forth on it, but my last "official" list written for TF late last year had Borg ahead of Lendl. But my main point, again, is that I think they can be spoken of in the same breadth.

 

[El Dude]

Oh I don't doubt it. But at the end of a player's career, how do we score it? For example let's compare David Ferrer to Petr Korda. Ferrer has 26 titles, no slam obviously. Korda has only 10 titles including 1 slam. To my mind they've had equally successful careers roughly speaking. But Korda will get more shine for the AO win. It's a toughie. Listen I'm not disagreeing with you re: slam importance. But at some point we have to have some sort of agreed upon formula. Otherwise a guy could win 50 titles and no slams versus a guy who wins one slam. To my mind the 50 title winning guy has been more successful.

Good discussion. This isn't only a peak vs. longevity issue, like say Nalbandian vs. Ferrer. There are plenty of Slamless players (e.g. Rios, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Mecir, Okker, to name just a few) that were greater peak or career players than some of the one-Slam wonders out there (Gaudio, Costa, Johansson, Edmondson, etc). Johan Kriek won two Australian Opens against fields that are comparable to today's ATP 500s; similarly with three-Slam winner Jan Kodes, although I think we can probably give his Slams more like Masters equivalencies.

This is why I think we need a balanced approach to such discussions and rankings - not only looking at Slam titles, but results (especially QF or better), other titles (especially YECs and Masters), rankings, weeks at #1, and other factors like winning all four Slams, etc.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics has GOAT rankings, based upon "GOAT points". It only includes Open Era results, so players like Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe are ranked lower than they should be, but for more recently players it is a bit more useful. Of course the problem with such approaches is that it still has issues with context (e.g. weighing all Slams equally). But in case you're wondering, it ranks Ferrer way ahead of Korda, with 123 to 52 GOAT points. Korda is tied at #62 with Guillermo Coria and Tim Henman, both Slam-less players, while Ferrer is tied with Thomas Muster at #27, and ahead of such players as Goran Ivanisevic, Marat Safin, and Michael Stich.

I'm not saying we should just agree with these rankings, but they're worth considering. You can see their formula at the bottom of the page. It makes a lot of sense to me, but perhaps too heavily weighs towards accumulated stats due to longevity, and not enough towards peak value, and of course has no way of accounting for non-quantifiable aspects of greatness.

 

[Fiero425]

Borg obviously has the edge in Slams, 11 to 8 - also win % (but that's largely due to retiring early). But in almost every other way, Lendl's resume is superior. Consider:

*94 to 64 titles, or +30 titles for Lendl
*35 to 28 big titles, or +7 big titles for Lendl
*270 to 109 weeks at #1, or +161 weeks for Lendl

It really is a classic case of higher peak (Borg) vs. greater longevity (Lendl), but Lendl's peak was also very high. I also think Lendl played in a harder era, his prime overlapping several generations of greats in their prime year. Borg had to face a Connors and Vilas on one side, McEnroe/Lendl on the other, but Lendl had to face Connors/Vilas, Borg/McEnroe, but also Wilander/Edberg/Becker and Agassi/Courier/Sampras.

Again, my point is not to say definitively that Lendl was greater than Borg, but they're a lot closer than historical memory and surface stats tell us. I go back and forth on it, but my last "official" list written for TF late last year had Borg ahead of Lendl. But my main point, again, is that I think they can be spoken of in the same breadth.

I felt the same way about Nadal & Djokovic; Rafa with a few extra majors, but woefully behind Nole in other statistics including titles, weeks at #1, and ability to defend off "dirt!" As Brit may have commiserated with me that Nole's past year has really hurt the argument, but he still has time to recover; just as he did after 2013!

 

[britbox]

Borg obviously has the edge in Slams, 11 to 8 - also win % (but that's largely due to retiring early). But in almost every other way, Lendl's resume is superior. Consider:

*94 to 64 titles, or +30 titles for Lendl
*35 to 28 big titles, or +7 big titles for Lendl
*270 to 109 weeks at #1, or +161 weeks for Lendl

It really is a classic case of higher peak (Borg) vs. greater longevity (Lendl), but Lendl's peak was also very high. I also think Lendl played in a harder era, his prime overlapping several generations of greats in their prime year. Borg had to face a Connors and Vilas on one side, McEnroe/Lendl on the other, but Lendl had to face Connors/Vilas, Borg/McEnroe, but also Wilander/Edberg/Becker and Agassi/Courier/Sampras.

Again, my point is not to say definitively that Lendl was greater than Borg, but they're a lot closer than historical memory and surface stats tell us. I go back and forth on it, but my last "official" list written for TF late last year had Borg ahead of Lendl. But my main point, again, is that I think they can be spoken of in the same breadth.

It's also worth pointing out Borg only played 3 slams, Lendl played 4 for the most part. Borg's strike rate in the biggest tournaments was exceptional. Sorry buddy, I can't put Ivan above Borg.